editing ADR & 21st Century

I have an old Eclair ACL II from the 80s'.

I had an idea that I could make a film with just myself and a couple guys to help with equipment, get a couple local theatrical actors and minimise equipment. The biggest thing is sound. I want to film outside and I think, at this stage, having to worry about recording sound on location, being the only guy who knows anything about filming out of the people involved, would make it very difficult and more expensive.

Basically my question is: If I make this film and do the sound in post, leaving more money for stock - considering the sophisticated 21st century audience - what is the likelihood, even if the dubbing is good, of getting any distribution at all (i'm in the UK)?
Obviously I'm not looking for big-time distribution, any distribution would do - just so I have something against my name, something I can say I made and it was officially picked up.

Is it basically impossible to get distribution for a dubbed films nowadays, assuming the other content is watchable? I haven't seen any pure post-dub films since the influx of eastern bloc films in the 80s.

[Please don't tell me to get a digital camera...]

Thanks.
 
In my opinion: (based on my limited experience and research)

good quality with great performance trumps great quality with good performance every time.

In other words: Good enough production sound with a great acting performance, beats a great quality (Dub or ADR) with anything less that fantastic acting performance during ADR or DUB.



I believe that if you try to get a good enough sound, and capture a meaningful performance and you will have acceptable results.


Seems to me that it doesn't take too much to go from BAD production sound to GOOD ENOUGH production sound. Going from "Good enough" to "Great" is where the experts earn their money!

By way of illustration: The quality uplift of using and external mic on a boom, over the ON CAMERA mic is huge.. and not all that hard to achieve.. even if you're boom guy has little experience, chances are it will sound WAY better than the on camera mic.. lots of gain for little investment..
 
good quality with great performance trumps great quality with good performance every time... In other words: Good enough production sound with a great acting performance, beats a great quality (Dub or ADR) with anything less that fantastic acting performance during ADR or DUB.

I think I get your point and I think we are in agreement but I'd like to add/clarify as what you have said of course depends on your definition of "great", "good" and "good enough": At every professional level, even the very highest (world class actors and the best ADR facilities and personnel money can buy) the expectation is that the acting performance will never be as good in ADR as it was during the original performance (filming). A world class ADR editor and re-recording engineer can make a difference to the point where the audience still experience a very high quality acting performance.

In my experience, "good enough" by general indie standards is not even close to good enough by most professional commercial film standards. At commercial theatrical film standards and particularly the higher budget films, great performances usually do not trump good quality recordings and that is why most commercial feature films usually have around 70% of the dialogue ADR'ed. But this isn't a good model to follow for very low/micro budget filmmakers because they don't have access to any of the following: World class actors highly experienced in doing ADR. World class ADR facilities. A world class ADR editor. A world class mixing facility or a world class re-recording mixer.

In other words, even with a really good production sound mixer you are still going to need some ADR but it is far more cost efficient to minimise the ADR requirement by capturing the best production sound quality you can, if you wish to achieve commercial film standards/expectations.

G
 
While audio is important .. there are other factors to consider, like a great story, told well.

Not sure I understand this statement. Sound Design is ALL (100%) about telling the story, rather than it being a different factor to consider.


Let me spell it out to you.

There are many factors that go into making a great film. Yes audio is an important part of the parcel and I realize it is your primary focus, you tend to over value it.

Script writing, acting, direction, cinematography, visual special effects, even marketing are all very important parts of film making... the truth of it, it's not all required all the time to achieve a result.

Take for instance Paranormal Activity. Love it or hate it it took $15k and turned it into a $193 million dollar block buster. The sound work sounded shoddy at best. You could hear what they were saying but the audio was far from great.

Does the guy who wants to make a film for distribution to get an IMDB credit need each and every piece of audio equipment and every audio professional that you see in block buster films? Of course not. If he did would it improve the quality of his film? So long as they add to the value, yes.

Is he going to be able to turn $15k into millions? Possible but unlikely. The point is, he can make good with what he has and still make an engaging story that people want to see without spending more than his total budget on audio.
 
Let me spell it out to you.

And you think that throwing production costs which have been invented for marketing purposes at me is "spelling it out" do you? Those figures have been put on IMDB for the punters, it's rather sad that you as a filmmaker don't realise!

The simple fact is, you'd be hard pushed to even get a Dolby print-master cut for $15k, let alone the sound design, ADR, SFX and the rest of the audio! If you look at the audio post team for Paranormal Activity you will find 7 good quality audio post pros listed. The production sound team isn't listed but that's probably at least another two people, so that's 9 audio personnel altogether. Even working on a shoestring, my guess is the total cost for the audio on Paranormal Activity was a minimum of $50k and may even have been $100k. Any idea how they managed to squeeze $50k+ for audio post out of a total budget of $15k? Now that's what I call creative accounting! :)

Even if the audio is "shoddy", do you honestly believe an inexperienced amateur working from home can achieve the same standards as 7 highly experienced, highly equipped professionals? While we're at it, maybe you'd like to explain which of the audio post roles I listed you think can be dispensed with?

Thanks for spelling it out so well, although you didn't intend to, you've ably supported what I've been saying. Maybe you'd like to throw some more examples at me, like the famous $7,000 film El Mariachi (actual cost = $325,000)!

G
 
most commercial feature films usually have around 70% of the dialogue ADR'ed.
G

Wow, that's an interesting piece of trivia.

I was wondering the other day if there's any films that are 100% ADR, maybe they couldn't afford the right equipment or something... it'd be tough, but there's probably at least one, right?
 
70% of the dialogue ADR'ed.

Maybe there is a big difference between Europe and the US. "Hollywood" budget level films do everything that they can to use the production sound. They do, however, record ADR for large portions of the film although they do not necessarily use all the ADR in the final mix. Why would they record so much ADR if it is not used? Believe it or not, it is more financially efficient. Mr./Ms. Mega-Star comes in to do the ADR on the scenes that obviously need it, but, as long as they are in the ADR facility, they may as well record ADR for any spot in the film where there is the remotest hint of a vague possibility that ADR may be required. Now your bases are covered; you won't have to fly Mr./Ms. Mega-Star back to the ADR facility or do it at another ADR facility near where Mr./Ms. Mega-Star is currently working - along with all of the other miscellaneous but not insubstantial expenses required by their contract.

The amount of ADR used in the final mix going to depend upon the film. An action/adventure type of film will most definitely, without question, use a lot of ADR in the final mix. There is no choice, as the complex stunts, etc. that occur in an action/adventure film require noisy machines, pulley systems and the like that simply cannot be fixed even with the best technology available to the big audio post facilities. A drama, on the other hand, is mostly shot in very controlled environments, such as a sound stage. A sound stage is exactly that, a place where sound can be recorded in an optimum situation. The other indoor locations are also very well prepped by the production crew. Different rules apply when shooting outdoors; there is very little control over the environment. You have vehicle traffic, air traffic and the general "hum of civilization" to contend with. So here there is a much greater chance that ADR will have to be used in the final mix. The use of ADR for outdoor locations goes up rapidly if you are doing a period piece; the "hum of civilization" is too omnipresent to be entirely eliminated from the production sound tracks, so ADR will probably be required.

Then, of course, you need to consider things like extremely tight deadlines. In these cases it just takes to long to fix the production sound, so you use the ADR by default.

Another thing to be considered is that at the "Hollywood" budget level there are more options open to the dialog editors and the rerecording mixers. Besides just the boomed mic they will most probably have a discrete lav track for most of the primary and secondary actors.

And we haven't even touched upon how the dialog tracks can be vastly improved by a talented dialog editor before the production sound and ADR even gets to the mix stage.




At the low/no/mini/micro budget level the sound takes on a more important role than in "Hollywood" budget productions; you simply do not have the financial and technological luxuries that they do.

When it comes to most films we experience the film through the verbal exchanges between the characters; after all, that's what a script is, people having conversations.

"Hollywood" budgets use every trick in the book to work on the audience subliminally. Every detail is completely thought out, and quite a bit of it is tested, before production begins. The clothing worn by the main characters, their hair, their make-up provides insight into the character, and they test all of these prior to shooting. Every set/location is designed down to the minutest detail to provide more information. When production takes place you have the finest DPs/Cinematographers in the business expending every ounce of their talent and creativity to light the talent and the sets/locations to optimum effect. And the same attention to detail applies in post - editing, CGI, audio post, color grading and on and on - and is also done by the best talent available. Just take a look at the credits of major films; every one of those crafts people are the best that money can buy.

At the low/no/mini/micro indie budget level you do not have these luxuries. All you are left with, for the most part, is the quality of the script and the quality of the acting. Therefor, the low/no/mini/micro budget project entirely depends upon the interactions between the characters. Most of this will be verbal - the spoken word. If this is the case then shouldn't low/no/mini/micro budget filmmakers expend every effort to capture solid production sound? Solid production sound means minimal environmental sonic pollution, which includes excessive ambient reverb/echo. If the audience cannot hear the dialog effortlessly they will be pulled out of the story you are trying to tell. This being the case, shouldn't the low/no/mini/micro budget filmmaker expend every effort to capture solid production sound? Your actors will have difficulty performing ADR, and they will no longer be in character, especially if your near-final edit is months after shooting has been completed. Add in the fact that you now have to learn how to do ADR yourself and buy the equipment you need and set up an environment to record the ADR (not to mention the fact that you now have to learn a new discipline) or you will have to spend more money to get into even a basic ADR facility.

I'll leave it here.
 
So to sum up, you're saying that Audio is the only important factor in film making?

Where did I ever once write or imply that? If you look at any of my posts all you'll ever see is that I said that film is the marriage/combination of picture and sound.

In one sense though, audio is the only important factor in making films or programs for commercial distribution or broadcast: All the distributors/broadcasters I know in the UK have very strict audio delivery specifications. It doesn't matter how brilliant your script, how fantastic the acting, how great the cinematography or how well the story has been told, if your audio deliverables fail QC your film will be rejected, end of story!

I was wondering the other day if there's any films that are 100% ADR, maybe they couldn't afford the right equipment or something... it'd be tough, but there's probably at least one, right?

Alcove is spot on the money with his post. Although if anything Alcove, ADR tends to be employed more in Hollywood (and the US in general) than in Britain or Europe.

When I said 70% ADR, that was a very rough average. As Alcove said, dramas may only use 30-40% ADR other genres a great deal more. For example, motion capture and a lot of green screen can make the recording of high enough quality production sound virtually impossible. The figure bandied around the film sound design world for The Matrix was 97% ADR. El Mariachi is probably the best known example of 100% ADR because it was originally shot MOS.

G
 
So to sum up, you're saying that Audio is the only important factor in film making?
Where did I ever once write or imply that? If you look at any of my posts all you'll ever see is that I said that film is the marriage/combination of picture and sound.

In one sense though, audio is the only important factor in making films or programs for commercial distribution or broadcast: All the distributors/broadcasters I know in the UK have very strict audio delivery specifications. It doesn't matter how brilliant your script, how fantastic the acting, how great the cinematography or how well the story has been told, if your audio deliverables fail QC your film will be rejected, end of story!

Was that your fancy way of saying yes?
 
Was that your fancy way of saying yes?

A little application of common sense wouldn't go amiss. I would think it's obvious that just as there's no point focusing your efforts on the visuals and not employing the right people/equipment to get you through audio QC, there's no point in putting all your efforts into the audio, only to fail QC on the visuals!

G
 
I never thought you'd actually say it.

It's not my common sense that I was questioning. I believe I was quite clear in saying audio and many other areas are all important parts to the film making process.

Putting the best people they can and resources you have to make the best you can is all that independent filmmakers can do. When you're working with a limited budget, you don't always get the luxury of being able to afford the best people, world class post audio this and that, the best audio equipment and so on and there are many people making many things for many purposes getting differing ranges of success for multitudes of reasons. I'm sure you started somewhere. I doubt you started off as this all knowing audio wiz. There is no point in scaring off as many people from trying making their film due to their inability to perform world class audio and not having the budget from being able to afford it.

I presume deep down you're trying to help.

To get better, film makers need to go out there and make things. Shoot things. Put it together. Fail. Learn and move on. It's easier to fall into the trap of waiting until you have this piece of equipment and that and never make anything in the long run.

Just to be clear, yes audio is important to film making. I'm just saying, there are things that are more important than audio. Also to be clear, I do value your advice and knowledge when it comes to audio. You know your stuff.
 
I never thought you'd actually say it.

Then I suggest you read my other posts on indietalk before you presume to know who I am or where I'm coming from.

The simple fact is that most indie filmmakers know a lot more about and concentrate a lot more on the visuals than they do on the audio side of film making. The proof of this is how commonly indie films/programs get rejected due to audio QC failures.

G
 
I've read a lot of your posts already, hence my opinion of where you're coming from. You're always full on focused on the audio side of film making.... I get it, you're an audio guy. That's what you know. That's where you can see problems a mile wide that others would miss.

and you know, you're right about the audio thing. A lot of people do concentrate on the visuals at the expense of audio. It's all part of their learning curve. Most filmmakers aren't going to spend all of their hard earned savings on that top of the line camera and be happy to have someone tell them that they need to spend more than what they already spent on more audio equipment.

You know, most indie filmmakers know more about audio than the business side of things. and even more know the business side of things than they know about the marketing side of things. Both the business stuff and the marketing stuff are very important to an indie filmmakers success.

Aside from all that important stuff. Most indie filmmakers, and even a lot of professional filmmakers fail at the story side of things.

The importance of the business. marketing and story side of filmmaking comes before the visuals and the audio. Without them, the visual and audio means very little.

What's the point of a visually spectacular great sounding if no one is going to see it due to lack of marketing (or no hook), or it never gets made due to lack of finance or is boring due to poor character development, dull characters or a story that excites and relates to no one. There are a lot of ducks that need to be in a row before audio or visuals even have importance.

Then again, this is just my opinion, and I'm sure you're going to continue to have the position that audio is more important than any of these.
 
I've read a lot of your posts already, hence my opinion of where you're coming from. You're always full on focused on the audio side of film making.... I get it, you're an audio guy... I'm sure you're going to continue to have the position that audio is more important than any of these.

Then you haven't read enough of my posts or haven't understood them!

My focus is absolutely always on the telling of the story through the medium of film, far more so IMO than most here. A few here don't seem interested in telling a story at all but even those that do, don't seem interested in telling a story through the art of film but primarily through some other art form, mainly photography (moving). The actors give you something to point your camera at, the screenplay gives the actors something to say and do, music aids the mood of the photography and sound let's you hear what the photography is showing. This is not film, this is photography. At best it's telling a photographic story supported by several other arts/crafts but that's still NOT film! Film is an art form in it's own right, not just a variation of the photographic art but the seamless marriage of the visual and sonic arts to not just tell a story but to involve the audience to the extent that they experience the story.

Hardly anyone on this forum seems to know what sound design is, what it's for, why it exists, what role it plays in modern film making or have any idea how to enable it's use, let alone how to maximise it's story telling potential to involve the audience and allow them to experience the story. As modern film is the seamless marriage of the visual and sonic arts how can anyone who doesn't care about or even know what the sonic arts are, call themselves a "filmmaker"?

If, as you state, my focus was the sonic side of filmmaking, I would be suggesting that the visuals should exist to support the sonic arts and that filmmakers should be concentrating more on the sound than on the visuals. However, this is absolutely NOT my position! First and foremost I consider myself a film maker, the fact that my specialism is audio post is secondary. In other words, I don't want the audience to be thinking; "Wow, the sound is great", I want them to be thinking; "Wow, what a great film". In fact, much if not most, of the work of a Sound Designer is designed to only be perceived subconsciously. If the audience are thinking the sound was great, then by definition they must have been consciously aware of it, which in turn means that to some extent I have failed!
Most indie filmmakers, and even a lot of professional filmmakers fail at the story side of things.

I disagree. IMO a good film is not dependent on the quality of the story. I would be much more entertained, stimulated and engrossed by a mediocre story told by a great story teller than by a great story told by a poor story teller. Ergo: I believe most film makers fail in the telling of the story, not in the story itself.
What's the point of a visually spectacular great sounding if no one is going to see it due to lack of marketing (or no hook), or it never gets made due to lack of finance or is boring due to poor character development, dull characters or a story that excites and relates to no one.

I disagree! Poor character development, dull characters and a boring, unexciting, poorly told story are going to result in a film which audiences don't like. But, providing the film passes the distributor/broadcaster's QC at least someone will get the opportunity not to like it! Of course, marketing is essential to the success of any product and you can't manufacture a product without funding but likewise, unless you pass QC you won't have a product! If you are trying to make a film product, professional (commercial) quality sound is not an option depending on whether you have enough budget or whether you have any interest in sound. Without commercial quality sound you do not have a commercial product.

Few here seem able to tell the difference between good, great, bad or commercially acceptable sound and fewer still seem to care. This attitude not only makes it impossible to create a good or great film but makes it virtually impossible to create a film product at all!

G
 
Back
Top