Use of music and sound

**Nigel** · February 18th, 2007, 05:24 PM

I feel that music and sound is more important than the picture.

How much time do you spend on mixing??

I have seen really great projects die and flounder because they figured that once the picture was cut they were done.

Good Luck

**miker** · February 18th, 2007, 06:14 PM

I don't think it's more important, but it's at least equal. Except, it's never equal on-set. Sure spend hours fannying about with lights and camera angles, but don't worry about that aircon.

More and more I see shortcuts taken with sound - and perhaps I'm just old fashioned - but I'm not keen on the sound of lavs, the way even a long shot sounds like a close mic shot. Sound perspective is hotly debated, but largely ignored by filmmakers (it is after all possible to take that close mic sound and process it in post - but few seem to bother with that either).

One of the best shorthand descriptions of image/audio I've heard is that the image gives you information, and the soundtrack presents the emotion. (Note that I heard it, I didn't see it).

A good mix/soundtrack is as important as good visuals. However, it is possible for a good soundtrack to carry poor visuals. A good visual will never carry a poorly recorded soundtrack. Good soundracks can also trick you into seeing things that aren't there, and a well timed spot effect can help an editor out of a corner.

**Nigel** · February 18th, 2007, 08:25 PM

The reason I bring it is--I just watched a film I shot and the sound sucks. Every aspect of it. From not having any sound floor and lack of FX to the bad recording on location.

Why people don't spend the money on sound is mind boggling.

Youu can take a look at the trailer here:

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogn9k7-Gw5A[/nomedia]

Good Luck

**miker** · February 19th, 2007, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Nigel:
The reason I bring it is--I just watched a film I shot and the sound sucks. Every aspect of it. From not having any sound floor and lack of FX to the bad recording on location.

Why people don't spend the money on sound is mind boggling.

Youu can take a look at the trailer here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogn9k7-Gw5A

Good Luck

That is a supremely lazy trailer and gets pretty boring pretty quickly IMO.

Even a trailer needs a hook and inciting incident nowadays.

That type of trailer should be classed as a teaser and less than 30 seconds long.

Maybe they didn't finish their final mixdown yet?

**sn-films** · February 19th, 2007, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Nigel:
I have seen really great projects die and flounder because they figured that once the picture was cut they were done.

To me, cutting the picture the easy part. Without propper audio mixing and color grading, you're really just watching some snappy dailies. [img]wink.gif[/img]

**emjen** · February 20th, 2007, 04:21 AM

that trailer seemed to last 5 minutes. But yeah, sound is important, and is often overlooked. I fucking hate sound because you need a soundman and someone who mixes sound. They're not amongst my friends and I for one dont know jack shit about sound editing.

**Nigel** · February 21st, 2007, 02:33 AM

I know what you mean about it being a bit long...

Once again not my choice. The final product was really pretty good except for the fact that the sound was shit.

It has a solid story and a feel that is really unique. However, watching it is painful because the sound is wretched.

Good Luck

**untamed_aggression** · March 1st, 2007, 11:35 PM

The 16mm camera we were using on Psychosis apparently had a bad mag or something, which resulted in this very loud whirring noise whenever we were rolling. We wrapped it in quilts and jumpers, but it did little to dampen the noise. Our sound guy assured us that he could barely hear it, after listening back to some of the DAT recordings.

Now that the rest of us have heard it, it seems to be not the case.It's fucking noticable. It sounds like a bear taking a dump.

Methinks a lot more foley and looping needs to be done...