Kubrick on sound

[calgodot]

In the situation Kubrick described - shooting under a heavily trafficked bridge - there is no way a shotgun microphone would work. The traffic sounds no doubt reverberate under all that stone work. (We've all seen the movie, right? We all know the scene in question.)

The body microphones Kubrick used were likely some sort of piezo-type design - I've heard some describe these as "contact microphones." They are someof the most expensive pieces of equipment I've ever used, and are very easy to damage.

When next I viddy the movie with my droogs, I am going to eyeball that bit of nasty-nasty more closely!

[Actor]

I've tried some experiments with camera noise. The results may be of interest.
<ul type="square">[*]Using a borrowed Bell & Howell cassette recorder and Radio Shack microphone I placed the mike about 10 feet from the camera. With the gain all the way up the camera noise was clearly audible no matter which way the mike was pointed.[*]Turning the gain down to 50% the camera noise was no longer audible but actors voices could still be heard.[*]On the spur of the moment I started the camera, put it in a cardboard box, packed styrofoam peanuts around it and sealed the box with tape. The camera could not be heard with the mike at full gain, nor could it be heard by the unaided ear. When I opened the box the camera was still running, just as noisy as ever. So this makeshift blimp worked. I plan to repeat this experiment with a hole cut for the lens.[*]With the camera once again out of the box I tried using my camcorder for sound recording. The camcorder has no gain control. While actors were talking I could not discern the camera noise. However, when the actors stopped talking the camera pumped up the gain so that the camera noise was quite pronounced and the sound of the building's air handlers was a roar.[/list]