sound: boom vs lavs, double vs direct

[miker]

So I've now got back into the rhythm as a sound recordist and am again beginning to work at the ass-end of the Great British film industry. I have noticed a couple of trends with low/no budget filmmakers:

Firstly, it's never expected that the camera crew be owner operators, and yet for sound the posting is always "with own kit". What's the logic there? On the last shoot I did my kit was worth at least as much as the rented HDV camera kit. But that's just a minor rant, since being a kit owner can get you work.

What I really want to discuss here is the relative pros and cons of:

==

Boom vs Lavalier
It seems most everyone except the sound dept prefer lavs. I don't think it's a matter of job preservation. I really think boom should be the default, it sounds more natural (to me), and lavs used in situations that absolutely demand it. To me there's something not quite right about the absolute close-mic sound of a lav. Plus they amplify an actor's every move, and clothes rustle.

I think a lot of producers prefer lavs cos they can essentially eliminate the need for a sound department, and work their crew like a wedding videographer. With the added advantage of never having to worry about getting the boom in shot ...

What are your thoughts?

==

Double vs Direct
Again, the default expectation is that I will have a mixer and jack directly into camera. And yet to me this is totally counter intuitive for filmmaking, and yes, even more general moviemaking. From personal experience I know that using the old-school double system where sound is recorded seperately and every shot clappered gives maximum flexibility on-set/location for the two departments since they are not tangled together. On a low/no budget shoot how many cable bashers to you ever see? Ever since watching "Visions of Light" fifteen years ago I truly believe that the camera should be free to be put anywhere - having the sound dept on an umbilical can be a default encumberance.

Thoughts?

==

[Generic Skinhead]

Right, well after a long, exacting but ultimatly successful search for a sound recordist willing to fly to Portugal, I feel in a good position to offer some thoughts.

One of the reasons I wanted someone with kit was because there's very few places that rent sound gear. Virtually no one has a DAT for instance. We're still trying to blag one from my old college.

I much prefer Boom actually. The quality is almost always better. From my experience radio mics can be fiddely and unreliable. Sometimes you *have* to use them but I'm more comfortable with a boom for sure. Keeping it out of the shot is all part of the fun!

I always record sound seperately, mostly beacuse I shoot film mostly. I agree that with this arrangement the sound and camera people can find the best position for what they're doing without being handcuffed together.

Bad sound is the trademark of the low budget film. Good sound people are goldust.

Nice thread btw.

[Nigel]

Boom...Always unless something just won't let you.

Double or Direct?? With video?? Which it seems you are asking about. I would push for both but I would fall on the side of direct for some situations and double for others. Double isn't that hard and it frees me(DoP) from hauling around more cords.

Good Luck

[miker]

Double or Direct?? With video??

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My reasoning there is that even if you are shooting video today, it's still useful to do the double system, if you are shooting cinematically (and not doing a docco for example where direct makes most economical sense).

I know that on the Big Hollywood shoots (you know the ones - 60 people on-set serving the visual, 3 people serving the aural) that long cable-runs to the video village are practical. On a low budget shoot (you know the ones - 6 people serving the visual, 1 person serving the aural) where you're forced to work fast due to the director scheduling 60 setups before reality kicks in, having cables everywhere between the camera and sound just doesn't strike me as a good idea - even on video.

Another reason I will argue for the double system on a low/no-budget drama video shoot is that I can take advantage of 24bit amplitude, whereas most DV formats are only 16bit. 24bit allows for better dynamic range and perhaps more importantly more headroom before you get that ugly digital clipping. Mastering at 24bit will ensure the best quality 16bit downmix. I think some of the HD cameras are 24bit, so that argument could soon become a moot point.

I'm pretty sure on the Star Wars prequels for example, it was recorded primarily direct to camera with double as backup. I would suspect the cabling was fibre with a cable basher around.

Maybe I'm just making excuses for not having a mixer ;-)

[assyrix]

I am recording via a mixer directly into camera as the DigiBeta I use gives a decent sound and I find it easier to edit the audio if it's all together.

[Nigel]

I would always argue to lay down both. A track on camera and a track that is off camera so that I can pull from both or either.

Personally, it seems that the sound I have heard with film is always better than with video...My guess is that they actually understand what role sound plays.


Good sound can cover bad picture. Bad picture can't cover good sound.

Good Luck

[Generic Skinhead]

Originally posted by Nigel:
Good sound can cover bad picture. Bad picture can't cover good sound.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">???? Think you mean good picture can't cover bad sound...

[richard.fisher]

The benefit of having a boom is that it isn't always ideal to have the mic as close to the actor as you possibly can. If you want the image and sound to appear to marry up naturally (you might not, you may wish to make the sound and image appear to not quite work togehter, in order to jar your audience, to produce a specific effect) then you need to be able to place the mic a variety of different physical distances from the actor.

For example, you are shooting the story of a soldier, in one scene he is sat huddled in the trench, having a softly spoken heart to heart with a commrade. Here you would probably have very close up shots of the two actors' faces, and would want the mic to be very close to the actor, to make the sound more inimate, to marry the image. In another scene the soldier is stood near the back of a huddle of troops being addressed by their commanding officer. The camera is placed just behind and beside the hero, looking towards the speaker about 10m away. Here you would want the mic placed away from the commander who is speaking, so that the sound feels like it has carried a distance (which of course it has). You would notachieve this if the commander was wearing a radio mic. It would just sound wrong.

[eidde]

A pin on mike is probably easier/quicker to work with (assuming no technical problems) but if its going to pick up rustling clothes and breathing then its not recording what you want it to.

If someone is willing to hold a boom in place then I would prefer that method - you then have a directional method of recording the sound that you want to record.

The results Ive gotten from boom mikes are ideal.

As far as recording seperatly - if someone would give me a quick tutorial on syncing seperate sound tracks to a clapper Id be very happy - Ive found it to be a pain in the arse. However having a seperate sound from film allows for more flexibility and freedom when editing.