More on Sonic Perspective

In film, your camera determines your perspective by bringing you closer or further away from the subject. Usually you would start with somewhat of a wide shot at the beginning of a scene to establish where the scene takes place. Then you would cut between medium and close up shots periodically for coverage of the scene, with the occasional cut back to the wide to depict any sort of movement that may happen during the scene.

In sound, there is also a perspective that comes through, depending on how the scene is framed with the camera. If the shot is wide, there usually is no way to get a boom near the subject, and hence the perspective is far away.

In this case, it seems unreasonable to expect the sound department to get a close up sonic perspective of a subject if the camera framing doesnt physically allow it right? Well, you would be surprised how many people do not consider this.

Some film makers shoot mainly wide shots in an effort to save time and money, and although wide shots can be very beautiful if done right, they can also give a sitcom effect to your picture. "But sitcoms have sound right? It's pretty good!" Well, if thats what you want, but let me tell you a little about how that is done, and why it isnt ideal for your film. First, the sitcom is a dying style, and it only works on closed sets for the most part. A sitcom has a built set with no ceiling and a couple of crane operated mic booms hanging overhead with a special kind of super long range shotgun mic that is able to get decent (but not cinema quality) coverage over such wide shots, because most sitcoms are shot relatively wide. This would be rather impossible for a "one man show" type sound person to get on his/her own. Sitcom style shooting also tends to require excessively long shots, meaning they run for a long time, and cover more than one actor. A boom operator holding a boom over their head for your wide shot can't do that all day, and usually 10 minutes is really pushing it.

Well then why not just put a lav on them? If you have read any of my previous posts, you will know that relying on a lav is never the solution. If your camera/lighting departments arent working with the sound department to make sure that everyone is happy, chances are you are not going to get ideal coverage for sound. So your picture may look fantastic, but your sound may be hollow and distant, or extra noisy.

I've worked on a number of films where the DP will say something like "I've run sound for a film, so I am conscious of what the sound department needs." That is nice to get a sympathetic person on set, but the truth is, unless you have a deep understanding of sound, both technically and in experience, you will know that their idea of what you need as a sound person in order to get good sound is vague at best. They often think that because they can hear the dialogue, the sound is good. And to the untrained ear, this will pass. But as soon as that film is projected alongside a film that did things the right way at a festival or something, suddenly your opinion changes.

So unfortunately the sympathetic DP often has no real idea of what you need, which is terribly unfortunate because your camera and lighting departments are often dictating how you do your job, without really knowing anything about what your job requires.

This is why a lot of sound people keep to themselves on set, do their job, deliver the audio, collect their check and leave. Because they are tired of fighting the good battle on every set they work on, on every setup they do. So they simply say "We can only deliver you the quality of sound that your production allows us to give you". What does this mean? Well, if your camera person only does wide shots, and your lighting crew arent making it possible to get a boom near the subject without casting shadows everywhere, then they arent letting the sound department do their job right. And to make things worse, the noisier your location is, and the further away your boom is from your subject, the worse your sound will be.

What it comes down to is this: The best place for a microphone is as close to the subject as possible. This is just how it is, theres no such thing as magically "zooming in" your audio. If the mic can't get close to the subject, they will sound more distant, and you will have a louder noise floor, or background noise.

So back to perspective. If your shot is wide, dont expect to get a close perspective from your sound, because it is physically impossible, with certain exceptions. Punch in to a close up on your subject to get good coverage, and please, do not forget about the dialogue editor! They are probably the most important person in post production audio!

Syncing Sound To Film

In the independent film world our budget forces us to make decisions that we will hope save us money. One of those things that I see more and more often are people trying to record the sound directly into the camera. The idea behind this is to save time in post production by not having to resync the sound before editing. Although this works in theory, it is not exactly practical. In this post I will explain the pros and cons of doing this, and why.

Sound into camera: Why not? It is already in sync with the picture, less time in editing right? Well, yes and no.

Every so often I get a director/producer who insists that I record the sound directly into his camera. But more often than not, I am using my shotgun mic and at least a couple of wireless lavs. At this point I am using more than two tracks, and most cameras being used today in the independent film world only have two audio inputs. So there is the problem of only having an initial mix of all of the tracks. Going this rout defeats the purpose of having dialogue editors and mixers in post. In a sense, you could relate this to setting your camera's focus to a fixed point, and not adjusting it for the entire film. There will be moments of clarity, but for the most part it is far from ideal.

The other disadvantage to this is the obvious lack of monitoring and adjustment capabilities that your sound team can make during a take. Granted, if the signal is being sent to the camera via a mixer, then the sound mixer can be making those adjustments as needed on his end. But if the camera's audio input levels havnt been calibrated to match that of the sound mixer, your audio may be too low or too high into the camera. Too low of a signal means that you will have a higher noise floor, and too hot of a signal means that your signal will distort or clip.

Auto Gain and Limiting: Many of todays cameras have these features, but what do they do exactly? Well, Auto Gain simply takes the audio input level and adjusts it to always be at a nominal level. Sounds like a good idea right? Well, it is a machine, and it cannot anticipate what will happen in the script. So if there is no dialogue happening for example and it is quiet, the Auto Gain will ramp up the signal until the noise floor is violently loud, and as soon as someone speaks, the signal will be too loud and peak, and the Auto Gain will ramp the signal down too low, but not fast enough, and you will have levels changing during your dialogue. And the Limiter? Well it works some of the time, but if the signal is too loud, it is going to clip no matter what.

DSLRs and Juice Boxes: A Juice Box is a small device that you can connect to your digital SLR (Canon 5D, 7D, etc), and will allow you to connect two XLR (mic) cables directly into it. It will usually even provide the ability to switch on and off phantom power, a low cut (high pass) filter, and a pad. Some will also accept mic or line levels, and have a number of other functions, including a headphone output so you can monitor your signal on it's way into the camera. Sounds great right? Ideally it should be, but here are the issues involved with using a juice box and trying to record into your DSLR:

Monitoring: Your DSLR does not have a headphone jack, so you cant actually listen to what you are recording. You can listen to your sound before it goes into the camera via the juice box, but it may be too loud or too low when it gets to the camera, because both the camera and the juice box have separate input level controls, and you have to adjust both of them so that they match, which can be pretty tricky. Fortunately your DSLR has level meters for you to watch and see the levels rise and fall. This is helpful, but to make things more confusing, heres the kicker: There is no manual audio gain control on the DSLRs as of yet, which means you are stuck in Auto Gain! The juice box companies have thought of this however, and have designed a system where one of your two available audio channels are fed a signal tone which keeps the gain constant, allowing you to record onto your other audio channel without the ups and downs of your Auto Gain roller coaster.

So here we have somewhat of a solution, but you can only record onto one channel, which means if you are doing anything more than using one mic source, such as a boom or handheld mic for interviews, you are stuck with that pre mix problem because at this point you need your audio sources to once again go through your sound guy's mixer and be condensed down into a single mono track before it hits the camera.

The other issue I have seen with the DSLR/juice box system is that a good number of these dont seem to connect to each other well. What I mean is that in order to connect the juice box to your camera in a way to get the sound into the camera, you take a small cable coming out of the juice box and stick it into the mini-jack input in your camera. In my experience, I have seen a number of these connections fail, and you will lose your audio without even knowing it (until you go back and take a listen once youre home)! In this case, you will either get distorted audio or your camera will just revert back to it's built-in mic. I have even seen the input cable get partially in, but not all the way, so you don't actually get any audio at all! Either way you cant tell just by looking at the camera. You actually have to transfer the file onto your computer and check to be sure since there is no way of plugging headphones directly into the camera.

Time Code and Resyncing Sound: In the past we have often used Time Code as a reference so that the audio and video could be more easily resynced in post for dailies or "rushes". This is not a bad system, but it is an expensive one. Not that many cameras today being used in the indie world can even run Time Code, and if they do (like in the case of the RED ONE), there is often a drift that happens rather quickly, so Time Code becomes useless at that point. In regards to sound, what your sound mixer needs is a mixer/recorder that can support Time Code (again, an expensive feature to have), as well as a Smart Slate (very expensive), and sometimes additional components to run, jam, or link the Time Code to your camera and sound recorder. If you want your sound guy to have these options available, first consider the practical application of what you need it for, and what it would cost to get it all up and running, as well as be sure that your camera can support it! I get directors/producers ask me all the time if I have a smart slate and Time Code, but when I ask them what they are shooting on, often times the reply is a 5D or an HVX, at which point I ask them why they want me to have Time Code when they cant even use it!

So let's think about a better way of syncing sound to picture without an expensive Time Code package. I have recently worked on a few projects where the editor has been on set and told me that there are new plug-ins for Final Cup Pro and possibly Avid that will analyze the sound from the camera's on board mic, and compare it with the production audio tracks, and snap them together automatically. Although I havnt been able to find these products on my own, I have heard from a number of sources that this does in fact exist and works! And as an added bonus, they say it isn't expensive either. So there you have it! A simple inexpensive solution that will save everyone money, and you a lot of time in post production because you dont have to manually resync the sound to picture for each take, which will save you more money because you dont have to pay your editor for his/her time in doing so! And you can keep your sound guy/gal who will deliver you great audio to match your picture!

Regarding the Sound Department and Costs

When you hire a sound guy, most often there are two things that you look at when deciding on which sound guy to go with: Experience, and Equipment. With this in mind, it is somewhat rare to expect the same things from almost anyone else on set. DPs rarely have their own camera (unless you are shooting on something like a 5D or 7D), and the production usually rents the lighting and grip equipment. Makeup brings their kit, sometimes Wardrobe provides the clothing, but often times they are provided with a budget to purchase or have made certain articles of clothing. The DIT often has his computer, programs and card readers. And a few other people often have their own equipment, but usually pretty small stuff, with the exception of a steady cam operator. The sound guy on the other hand has to have his own kit, otherwise he wont get work. It isnt very faire, but thats the way it is. We also have to settle for less pay than the DP, unless its a really low budget production, in which case the sound guy is often the only person that gets paid. I'll get back to this point in a minute.

So whats in a standard production audio kit? Well, a shotgun mic, boom pole, headphones, two wireless lavs, and a multi-track field recorder/mixer. We often cary more than that, but a basic standard ENG kit is what I just described, as well as cables and various accessories. Now lets say the production wants the sound guy to provide Comteks (listening devices for the director, producer, and/or scripty), or a Time Code slate. In my opinion, these are things that are outside of the job description of the sound guy. The sound guy is there to record audio, not to ensure that the camera is in sync with time code, or that everyone can hear whats happening. So if a production requires me to provide these things, I tell them that they need to pay extra for it. But listening to whats happening, thats audio related right? Well, yes, technically. And so are walkies. But it isnt my job to provide those either. But the sun, doesnt it provide light? Well that must be something that grip needs to provide. I feel that requiring so much from the same person is a bit unreasonable. Often times because I have to show up with thousands of dollars of my own equipment, and get paid less than people who provide none of their own gear.

Now, those low budget shoots where Im the only one that gets paid. Whats up with that? Well the truth is, DPs, actors, directors, these are all people that need to have something to add to their reel. They need to prove that they are competent, and have a lot of experience, because a lot of what they do is make artistic decisions. So if someone hands them a job, that is saying that they trust these people to make artistic decisions for them, which is really a lot of trust to have for someone working on your project. But because of this constant needing to prove ones self in these fields, these people will often have to accept a smaller wage on a low budget production because they need this for something, so in a sense the project it's self is part of the pay. 

The Sound Department on the other hand doesnt need to prove anything to anyone. Once youve gotten a few credits under your belt, and you have your own kit, you can get work for the most part. So when the low budget production comes to me and says how great the team is, how awesome the script is, and how many name actors are involved, and that they are all working for peanuts or nothing at all, that it is a passion project, I consider the following: work for nothing, or an insulting rate, or just check job posting and find something with an adequate wage. I have no problem finding work, so why should I cheapen my craft by making professional production audio something people can get for free? Not to say that Im greedy, but remember how I mentioned that I have to provide my own equipment? Well that stuff is expensive, so I often have to re invest every extra dollar I have into new gear, replacement parts, etc.

To rent out a standard sound package from a rental house, Ive done the following research:

Rental House 1 - $460 per day

Rental House 2 - $395 per day

Rental House 3 - $430 per day

These are the daily rental rates of the same sound kit at three different rental houses. This is what it would cost a production to rent these items, not including someone to operate them. Now, there are then expendables to take into consideration, such as batteries, topstick or moleskin, etc. A sound person needs to make at least enough money per day to make working in audio worth it, instead of working at a supermarket. On top of that, he needs some sort of kit fee to make it worth the wear and usage of his equipment. This stuff is expensive, and some things have to be replaced rather frequently. I think on average I replace the microphone component of my wireless lavs about three times per year per lav. Why? The wires are delicate, and actors forget that they are wearing them, so they put stress on the wires, spill drinks onto them, perspire onto them, lots of reasons. And those mics start at $150 each, and can go as high as $1000 per mic!

I get a good amount of gigs where they see what my kit consists of, and then the day before shooting they tell me they are going to need x amount of wireless lavs. I have to remind them that they saw my kit, they know how many I have, and that they dont grow on trees and arent inexpensive. If they need more than what I have, they can rent them, or I can rent them and they can pay extra.

Im not trying to sound like a curmudgeon, but the overhead costs for the sound department are high, and in the independent film world, few people respect that. Those that do however are often times the best people to work with, not just because they are a friend of the sound department, but because they have a better overall sense of how a professional shoot works, and who puts what into their craft.

But the one thing that I think anyone should really walk away from this article with is that every position on a film set is important, and there for a reason. So you cannot overlook each department or position because you view them as a lesser position. Shoots without PAs and Grips take twice as long, so the money you are saving from not hiring these people is spent on time and location. An AD is important because among other things, they keep us on schedule. A scripty makes sure that everyone is sticking to the script, and generates reports that are important to the editor and dialogue editor. ACs are important because they build the cameras, follow focus, and make sure that things are running smoothly in the camera department. These are all important positions, and no single position should be overlooked or thought less of.

Frame It Out!

I dont expect everyone on set to fully understand the nature and technical aspects of audio. After all, that is why they hired a sound guy in the first place! But Ive recently had some experiences with actors and producers who really dont have a good grasp on how sound works. These scenarios are for everyone's benefit:

Most recently I was shooting a film in the desert. One of the shots called for the actor walking towards the camera while speaking. Simple enough, however the camera was hand held and walking backwards as the actor continued walking. Now, most camera operators (from my experience anyway) arent very subtle with their movements in regards to sound, and in this case, we also had the assistant director following along with myself as well. Naturally I extended my boom pole out to its maximum reach in order to distance myself from the audio I wished to capture. However the camera operator and assistant director both made a great deal of noise while walking, so when you listen back it sounds like more than one person walking during this scene.

Now, I had a lav on the actor, as well as used the boom. I told everyone involved that they would most likely have to re record that dialogue because there were too many footsteps in the background. At this point the producer began telling me that he had seen a sound guy have things on separate tracks, which is why we had the lav on the actor in the first place. Yes, this is true, however the lav doesnt have perfect isolation, so those footsteps are still audible. If you wanted true isolation, you would record the dialogue and the footsteps separately. That is the only way to obtain true isolation. At this point the producer and actor proceeded to argue with me about this! At which point, I told them that they could spend all day trying to tell an expert about his craft, but that wont change the way sound works.

This is a tragic case of ignorance and unwillingness to admit when one is wrong. But the real unfortunate thing about this scenario is that although I recorded plenty of "wild" tracks of footsteps and clothing movement, most of the dialogue was ad-libbed, so I couldnt get wild tracks of those lines because the actor couldnt remember them! This is a real case of shooting ones self in the foot, because instead of me recording the lines off camera a few times to give the dialogue editor something to play with, they will have to either go into the studio to re record those lines, or be stuck with the production audio with the mystery phantom footsteps!

Another thing I find myself saying a lot on set is that sound is not like a camera. I cant just frame out what I dont want to hear! So when we are rolling, I need things to be quiet. This not only includes the location, but also the cast and crew that are not in the scene. A funny story:

I was on a set where a number of the cast and crew werent respecting the "silence while rolling" policy, and on top of that, most of crafty was comprised of things in plastic wrappers such as chips and granola bars. I was constantly hearing those plastic wrappers in my headphones, which is a very irritating sound. So after asking politely that everyone set their snacks down while we were doing a take several times, I reached a point where I had had enough. So in the middle of a take I called cut, stopped recording, set my equipment down, walked over to craft services and threw everything that was in a plastic wrapper away, as well as took any remaining snacks out of peoples hands. One person that I confiscated their snacks from was the producer. Normally a big no-no. But when the producer got mad at me I told him that I was hired to record good sound, which was not possible if people cant put down their snacks during a take. So what was it going to be? Good sound, or snack time? I had recently told this story to some crew members, and the very next day one of those people was eating chips while we were doing a take. The director snapped at the guy, telling him "he just got finished telling us about this, werent you paying attention?!?"... I thought it was kind of a funny situation!

As you can see I am very strict about noise during a take. In many cases, the location we are shooting in will be so quiet that I can hear the movement of a person that is off camera while they simply shift their weight. That is why we call out "sound is speeding", so that people know to quiet down. If people arent respecting this right away we call out "settle!". This implies that we set everything down that was in our hands, stand perfectly still, and breath as silently as possible. Because remember, we are in a recording session at this point!

One thing that I see more often than anything else are the use of mobile phones on set. When I am on set, I turn my cell phone off. I expect everyone else on set to do the same, so before our first take of the day, I tell everyone "cell phones off!". At this point I get a lot of people putting their phones on silent instead of off. Silent is not the same as off. Have you ever set your phone next to a speaker, and then received a call or a text? That weird sound coming from the speaker is what I hear in the mic, even when your ringer isnt on. Why? Well, I dont completely understand how a transducer (speakers and microphones are transducers) would pick up on something like that, but it does. A speaker turns electrical signals into acoustical audio, and a microphone converts acoustical audio into an electrical signal, so they will both pick up on this if it does happen.

I will admit that this phenomenon happens a lot more frequently in europe for some reason, but if you are close enough to a microphone here in the States I will pick up on it. 

So I often times have to tell people that "silent is not the same thing as off, so please turn your cell phones OFF". Since there are so few people who actually do this, I sometimes have to institute a "$20 if your phone goes off" policy. Most people dont take this very seriously, and view it as an empty threat. But when it happens I stop production until I get payed by whomever received the phone call.

This is a very effective method because people dont want to have to lose that much money, but more so because the director or producer doesnt want to wast any time, so they will tell the person "thats what he said and you didnt listen, so pay him so we can move on!". Obviously this is an extreme situation, and you would have to be working with some rather unprofessional people in these cases, but you would be surprised how these types of people manage to find their way onto a set!

Aside from my extreme measures that I have to take from time to time, I am a very pleasant person to work with, and a lot of film makers tell me that they enjoy the fact that I am not a typical sound guy who stays away from everyone, quiet in his corner. Instead I make friends with everyone and participate in what is going on, as well as joke around with the other crew members. I get a lot of repeat business because people enjoy working with me, but they also know that I run a tight ship, so when it comes down to business, Im on top of it.

So the moral of these stories is simply this. Unlike a camera, I cannot just frame out unwanted sound. So if conditions on location are not suitable to make clean recordings, then the sound guy cannot guarantee the quality and integrity of the recording. And if you dont get a good recording on set, you will have to spend a lot of money in post to re record things. So make sure that not only is your location a quiet one, but the people on set with you are going to respect the fact that they have to be quiet. And film makers, please dont tell experts how to do their jobs., it only makes you look like a fool.

Location Location Location!

One of the biggest factors that will determine not only the outcome but the budget of your film is the location. In the indie film world, this usually means whatever place will suit your film cosmetically, and is free to shoot in. 

Since a lot of indie film makers are looking for places to shoot in that won't cost them anything (permits, location rentals, etc.), they often take what they can get. Or they may have found some place that has a beautiful backdrop. That's fine and there's nothing wrong with that. But there is often one thing that location scouts forget about, and that of course is the issues that the location may cause in regards to sound.

When you are filming in an apartment in downtown Los Angeles or New York, one would expect a little city noise in the background, and though not ideal, it's ok because we understand where the location is in the setting of the film.

But one of the noisiest places one can film believe it or not is in a suburban neighborhood. The difference is that while a downtown location is noisy, it is relatively constant. But in the suburbs, it is generally quiet until something makes a noise. At that point, your take is ruined and you have to re shoot.

I recently worked on a film where the setting was in a typical suburban neighborhood where all of the couples were young, everyone had young children, dogs, an SUV, and were living the modern version of the 1950s dream.

I arrived on location early in the morning, and it was quiet and a lovely day. Once we began filming, an army of gardeners were unleashed upon us. These were people from a gardening company contracted to come through the entire neighborhood every week and do all the landscaping, trimming, etc. They first sent the lawnmowers, then the weed wackers, then the side trimmers, then the leaf blowers (which are actually illegal in Los Angeles county because they pollute and don't abide by noise pollution laws, which of course are never observed). We were able to convince them to come back later in the day (we were shooting everything outside) by sending over a good looking actress to ask them kindly and to offer them some money, sandwiches and some beer. But our efforts were in vein because as soon as they quieted down, the garbage truck came around, and for whatever reason, picked up the track of every third house, so they could draw out their hours and make the rounds three times. They began at about 10am and were still there around 5pm!

Of course there were dogs barking, motorcycles, trucks, SUVs and other large (and loud) vehicles that were passing constantly throughout the day, but when about 1pm struck, all the kids came home from day care/school. So at that point, suddenly there are kids screaming throughout the film for no particular reason.

If the location scout had shown up to the location on the same day during the same time a week before making their final decision, they would have known that choosing this location was basically going to completely ruin the film. The fact is that there was constant noise all day long, and we spent most of the day waiting for it to quiet down enough to get a take, so needless to say we finished very late, and there was a lot of background noise that you typically don't hear in suburban settings in films or TV shows.

Another film I worked on recently had some visually great locations, but a good segment of the film was shot under a freeway overpass, which was noisy due to the traffic overhead which is understandable. But a place like that acts as a wind tunnel. Anyone who has shot at the beach knows that wind is not a friend of the microphone, even when you have a blimp around your boom mic, or when you're using lavs. I told the producer that we would be lucky if any of the audio recorded in that location would be useable. 

Other locations that are problematic in a different way are locations that are too reflective (have echo), and have that "roomy" sound. A lot of homes and apartments built between the 1940s and the 1970s have low ceilings, which is not only difficult for the Boom Op, but often causes poor acoustics, which gives you that "roomy" or "boxy" sound. If you are shooting on a location like that, you should take into account acoustically treating the location prior to filming. Acoustical treatment is different than sound proofing, though people often don't know the difference.

Studio foam is acoustical treatment. It will not sound proof anything; it is foam and you can hear through it. But it will help reduce the acoustical reflections caused by bare walls. This is called acoustical treatment. The only issue is that it is expensive and probably won't fit in with the decoration of your set. But there are alternatives. Tapestries often work well as good acoustical treatment and decoration at the same time. Often times when shooting a scene in a room there are bare walls that will never appear on camera that could be covered with blankets or carpet. Tile and hard wood floors are also reflective and the more you cover up, the better your sound will be.

So for all you beginning and indie film makers, be aware of what kinds of noise problems your location has, because I guarantee you that in post you will either have a lot of work (which will cost a lot to fix), or you will simply have bad audio. And bad audio in a film means you have a bad film.

Dialogue Editing

In this article I am going to talk about the importance of Dialogue Editing, what it is, and how everyone on set can be aware of its possibilities, and what they can all do to make it go smoother so your film turns out better in the end. But before I get into that, I want to address a small thing that can really make all the difference in the world regarding the mixing process of a film.

If you hired a sound guy who knows what he's doing, he probably recorded all of the audio in 24 bits, as opposed to 16. But when the editor starts up their session, it sometimes defaults to a 16 bit session, and the editor either doesnt know the different, or forgets to change it to a 24 bit session. So all of those nice high def audio files recorded on set are being reduced to almost CD quality (which is low)! Be sure that the editor knows to run their session in 24 bits so that you arent handing a lower quality project to your post sound guys after editing.

For those of you who dont know, 24 bit vs 16 bit is the equivelant of having a fader on a mixer that is one inch high as opposed to three inches high. For you video people, its like DV vs HD. If you were trying to mix something with the small fader, you would have less room to really get that track into the mix. But if you had a larger fader, you would have more room for the sound to lay in its place and really dial in where it needs to be. Litterally speaking, we are talking about dynamic range, which is how much room you have between silence and distortion (how loud your signal can get). 24 bits gives you a lot more head room, so your signal is less likely to distort. And it sounds more natural, because it is less compressed than 16 bits. So be sure to keep this in mind.

Now, on to Dialogue Editing!

On set you usually have a number of different takes for a particular scene. In this example, I'm going to talk about a simple "two shot" scene, using one camera. 

Usually you would have your two actors facing eachother, and the camera is looking at one of the actors at an angle. The sound guy would normally mic up the actor that the camera is recording. Then when the director feels you have a good take, you do the exact same thing again, except the camera is facing the other actor, and likewise the sound guy is miking up that actor as well.

In editing, your film editor resyncs the audio for each take with the picture, decides which is the best take, and pieces it together, cutting between the two angles to show the conversation. Simple enough right? In theory, but there are a couple of things that can change the outcome.

Often times when filming a two shot, the set is nice and quiet for one angle, but then it gets noisy for the other angle. So when you cut between the two, one actor always has a lot of background noise, and the other doesnt. How do you avoid this? Well, sometimes you cant. But what your editor can do is go through all of the takes of that noisy scene and put a couple of the better audio takes on an ALT track in the session, so when it is handed off to the dialogue editor, they can go in and resync the audio to get a cleaner take.

Another problem that can occure is when the actors are allowed to improvise. If they are improvising, chances are you will have a very hard time piecing together a cohesive conversation, and if they have two different conversations for both angles of the same shot, you can really run into problems. I worked on a film once where this was the case, and the director/producer decided that for one segment they wanted the actor who wasnt on camera to be speaking during a two shot while we were looking at the other actor. The problem was that we never got a good take of the question being asked in the scene because the only time the question was asked was when that actor was off camera, so they clearly sound like they were far away from the mic, whereas every other time they spoke they werent. There was no budget in this film for ADR, so we had to live with it. If the actors hadnt improvised, we could have easily found a good take of that question and layered it over the scene to get a good version of that dialogue; another thing less experienced editors wouldnt know to do.

Another thing that we try to avoid is having actors step on eachothers lines. I know that sometimes the script calls for this, but it is hard to pull off and get good sound if youre on a low budget film, and you are only using a boom with no lavs. If the actors dont step on eachothers lines, the effect can be achieved in editing with little difficulty, and your audio tracks can be overlapped as needed.

A different thing one runs into is when let's say two actors are having a conversation, and again you are using one camera, and a boom. One actor is sitting at a table, the other is preparing something in the kitchen. The actors both usually go over their lines and have their conversation during both of their shots. Now, imagine in editing, you decide to focus on the actor preparing something in the kitchen while the seated actor talks. As far as audio goes, you have a choice of getting the sounds the actor in the kitchen is making, whith the voice of the other actor far away, or just the voice of the other actor, and no kitchen noise. Which do you choose? Well, I always tell the actors that it is best to do a quick run through and know how long the other actors lines are going to be, or give them some sort of signal once they are done so that they know when to respond. This way, when the descision in post is made to stay on the actor in the kitchen, but have the dialogue of the other actor be heard, you can still get a good signal from both actors and not compromise the situation. Just stick both takes on different overlapping tracks, and have your post mixer make it sound good!

These are just a few small examples of how everyone on set can work together as a team to ensure that your film turns out sounding great, regardless of how small the production is. Your dialogue editor will be very greatful, and as always, a happy crew is a hard working crew! That includes post!

Lavs Demystified

What are Lavs? Well, basically they are tiny mics that you clip onto your actors so that you can get audio from them when you dont have a boom, or cant get it close enough. Lav is short for the word "Lavalier" which in French means pendant or a kind of jewelry that would be clipped on like a broach.

Good sounding lavs can be very expensive, complete with a wireless transmitter and receiver easily cost over a grand each, but you can find cheaper ones. Those however are usually used for conferences and things where all you need to be is heard, and the quality of the audio isnt necessarily that important.

But it is possible to use lavs without the wireless setup. The catch is that now theres a wire involved that you have to run underneath your actors clothing, and all the way through the set to your sound mixer's mic input. This method isnt very common because lets face it, the actor doesnt want to be tethered to anyone, and having cables throughout the set can be a safety issue, let alone the fact that it may get in the shot! But using lavs wired is a good way to avoid all kinds of potential problems that can occur when using a wireless system.

Almost all lavs use wideband FM (Frequency Modulation) modulation, which means that they work like radio waves. The problem in this case is that they can often be using the same signal as a number of other wireless devices including other communication devices. On a good lav system you would have the option of scanning through the available frequencies to use, then set your transmitter and receiver to an open frequency. On some of the lower end models however you dont have this option, or if you do, you only have the option of using one of several frequencies, if the frequency isnt just set by the manufacturer.

Another issue is that if your actor has to continue his/her dialogue through lets say walking into other rooms, and the receiver (which should be with the sound guy) stays in the initial room, theres a chance that the signal can cut out. If you have ever seen Francis Ford Coppolla's "The Conversation", you see a high tech (for the time) sound guy/spy who has bugs in various places, picking up a conversation two people are having in a park. But they are walking around, and theres all kinds of things getting in the way. Later on you see him taking his various sources and making a compiled mix of the conversation the two people were having, and you hear his source tapes cut in and out. This sort of thing actually happens, though it usually takes thick walls or led paint to cut the signal completely.

The other downside to using lavs is that since they are to be clipped onto your actor, you have a high risk of getting clothing noise from your actor's movement, indirect audio because maybe the clothing your actor is wearing doesnt allow for a hidden mic clipped anywhere close to the bottom center of the neck (these two are usually the most common problems), and of course, poor sound quality because the mic is so small. They also eat batteries faster than you could imagine, and they only take good brand name batteries! I have also had interference because I could hear the actors heart beating over their dialogue!

Also, a good thing to know is that a lot of lav mics are omni directional if you are using one type of clip, and cardioid when using another. This can be the difference between an extremely high noise floor, and a good clean signal. The lav mics themselves often come in a little package with a number of different types of clips, so choosing the right clip is very important because the outcome of your audio is at stake, and there is usually nothing written anywhere to tell you this. A qualified Audio Engineer who has a good knowledge of microphones and electronics can tell just by looking at it, but most people just see several different clip options.

So with all of these negative aspects of using lavs, why bother? Well, as I mentioned in a previous article, lavs are a good backup system. Sometimes the boom just cant get close to the actor because maybe the scene requires a wide angle, or maybe the location doesnt allow for the boom to get close. This is a very normal problem on set, because "on set" doesnt necessarily mean you are in a film studio. Also, lavs can often pick up some good low end frequencies in an actors voice that may be desirable in the mix. Some actors are well known for their voice, and if the boom isnt picking up that low end, the voice might not be recognizable as that of the actor. In any case, it's always a good idea to have a backup if you can squeeze it into the budget, and your post sound guy will appreciate the options.

I work a lot in post as well, and it is nice to have multiple sources. I once worked on a film where we were shooting with the RED ONE camera, and they wanted to record the audio directly into the camera so they wouldnt have to re sync it later. Now, I have a lot of experience with that camera, and although it looks good and it's interchangeability is a cool feature, they really phoned it in when it comes to sound, which is why I recommend always recording to a different source, and to just not bother with the RED's audio. But in this case, that is what the producer wanted, and he wouldnt take "no" for an answer. So, knowing this, I said to him "then we're going to need a mixer with direct line outputs for each input". We were using three lavs and a boom, with a Sound Devices four-channel mixer, which provided direct line level outputs (I'll talk about the difference between line level and mic level in another article), because I wanted to avoid using the RED's mic pre amps. 

So even with all of this precaution, the RED (which can accept up to four analog audio sources, and record four separate audio tracks) still managed to distort most of the audio (though it was not audible at the time), which we found out once in post production. However, since we had multiple takes, and multiple audio sources, I was able to piece together the dialogue in the end and the difference was night and day. Initially, I thought we were going to have to ADR the whole film! But I was able to save the day (and the actor's patience!) by my use of all of these sources (I'll talk about Dialogue Editing in another article).

So I hope that this article was enlightening on what lavs are all about, and why they are a good idea to have, but not to rely solely on.