Audio Curriculum Discussion...
- Thread starter knightly
- Start date
Basics:
Signal/Noise
Spatial effects of different microphones (how to read a pattern graph)
Booming techniques
Lav / plant mic techniques
Recording
Foley / Sound FX / Sound Design
-Footsteps
-Ambiance
-Hand Passes
Mixing / Filtering / Post production toolbox
Music
-Frequencies and mixing/EQ (making holes in the music for dialog / FX)
I think all examples should include sound clips specifically produced to shot the differences between good and bad / before and after that are part of video clips showing the demonstration process to collect them / the post audio work being done in the editor.
Spectral graphs need to be shown and illuminated to SHOW the differences / before and after as well. Helping visual learners internalize the aural differences starts with the visual. Example: circling / pointing to an offending sound's frequency while playing the clip and pulling a Notch EQ would illustrate what the differences in frequencies are... perhaps even showing a frequency sweeping sine wave to help teach how to read the graph would be in order... differently pitched voices / instruments, etc.
I think we should hold off on the technical information until/unless there's a specific reason to present it. Example: we don't necessarily need to understand bit rate to have a discussion about quantization.
As many relations to commonly known, real world experiences as possible... I don't have specific example here just yet.
Most everything I've taught to folks in the past, I've always tried to boil down to 2 simple to grasp abstracts... HTML = characters and containers... Photoshop = Making selections and Doing things to selections, etc. Not sure how we could apply this quite yet (perhaps this is a per topic type of consideration rather than an over arching abstraction in this case.
Thoughts, concepts, comments, disagreements? Hit me! I'm good for it -- I'd love to have THE definitive online audio beginner's learning resource right here on Indietalk with our audio pros' names attached to it! If it's a cool enough thing, we could DVD it and sell it
Signal/Noise
Spatial effects of different microphones (how to read a pattern graph)
Booming techniques
Lav / plant mic techniques
Recording
Foley / Sound FX / Sound Design
-Footsteps
-Ambiance
-Hand Passes
Mixing / Filtering / Post production toolbox
Music
-Frequencies and mixing/EQ (making holes in the music for dialog / FX)
I think all examples should include sound clips specifically produced to shot the differences between good and bad / before and after that are part of video clips showing the demonstration process to collect them / the post audio work being done in the editor.
Spectral graphs need to be shown and illuminated to SHOW the differences / before and after as well. Helping visual learners internalize the aural differences starts with the visual. Example: circling / pointing to an offending sound's frequency while playing the clip and pulling a Notch EQ would illustrate what the differences in frequencies are... perhaps even showing a frequency sweeping sine wave to help teach how to read the graph would be in order... differently pitched voices / instruments, etc.
I think we should hold off on the technical information until/unless there's a specific reason to present it. Example: we don't necessarily need to understand bit rate to have a discussion about quantization.
As many relations to commonly known, real world experiences as possible... I don't have specific example here just yet.
Most everything I've taught to folks in the past, I've always tried to boil down to 2 simple to grasp abstracts... HTML = characters and containers... Photoshop = Making selections and Doing things to selections, etc. Not sure how we could apply this quite yet (perhaps this is a per topic type of consideration rather than an over arching abstraction in this case.
Thoughts, concepts, comments, disagreements? Hit me! I'm good for it -- I'd love to have THE definitive online audio beginner's learning resource right here on Indietalk with our audio pros' names attached to it! If it's a cool enough thing, we could DVD it and sell it
this would be fantastic, I am by no means an expert ( in fact im easily more beginner than anything) but i do feel more confident in sound ability than anything else, but I am always on the hunt for help or info, so having one big post would be amazing! booming techniques would benefit so many people! in fact almost everything to do with sound would.
this is a fantastic idea, and im honestly surprised no one has started something like this already.
on a side note i'm desperate for the day when someone doesnt just post " i have $3000 to spend on a camera what should i get" instead i want "i have $3000 what field mixer and mic should i get"
this is a fantastic idea, and im honestly surprised no one has started something like this already.
on a side note i'm desperate for the day when someone doesnt just post " i have $3000 to spend on a camera what should i get" instead i want "i have $3000 what field mixer and mic should i get"
I could make it really easy and just say read this website: www.filmsound.org. It's a great resource with plenty of practical examples but there is a significant amount of information which IMO is incorrect, often times due to the fact the information maybe out of date.
Logically I suppose we need to start with the basics, a sort of glossary containing an explanation of what each audio role is, why it's needed and what it does. This is relatively easy to explain in some case and virtually impossible in others, depending largely on the technical and artistic balance of the role.
G
Logically I suppose we need to start with the basics, a sort of glossary containing an explanation of what each audio role is, why it's needed and what it does. This is relatively easy to explain in some case and virtually impossible in others, depending largely on the technical and artistic balance of the role.
G
Like this?
This is an old session I remembered I still have. At the time I was working in radio and a friend of mine approached me to put together a car chase for him.
The tracks aren't even named (what was I doing).
I usually do... but at some budget levels... there's a single technician running everything (at least, that's where I started)... and there's gotta be come kind of "close enough" solution at that level -- Like everything else on a film project, it's a matter of thinking through the problem hard enough to find an acceptable solution.
Needing a store front doesn't always mean building a building out of brick and mortar to code with plumbing and electric... sometimes, it's just building a plywood facade and painting it like brick. At that level, the goal is to find a workable solution. It's not ideal, but for some, it's the only option.
I used a mic stand on many of my shoots to get a mic pointed at the actor as I ran the camera and monitored the audio. My attention was spread thin, and it shows... but I finished the project. When I got to my feature, I used this technique as well - I got acceptable (not stellar) dialog from it. My inattention showed, but it allowed me to develop the skillset to get to my current level of dialog editing (and cleanup -- lots of cleanup).
The goal here isn't necessarily to specify how filmmakers setup their crew and audio equipment, but to teach the skillset to make educated decisions about it. In my case, I'd recorded tons of music and had the technical ground work to know how I could gather sound in an acceptable way.
IMHO, every project is for learning what you need to do on the next one, not for getting it perfect on this one. This keeps forward momentum and when you get to the point that you cross the threshold from obviously amateur shorts to watchable ones (I've just done this in the past few years -- after a over a decade of filmmaking). Rodriguez hit the ground with "El Mariachi", but before that, he'd made hundreds of shorts with his family members learning his craft. I've only ever seen one of these; "Bedhead"
Needing a store front doesn't always mean building a building out of brick and mortar to code with plumbing and electric... sometimes, it's just building a plywood facade and painting it like brick. At that level, the goal is to find a workable solution. It's not ideal, but for some, it's the only option.
I used a mic stand on many of my shoots to get a mic pointed at the actor as I ran the camera and monitored the audio. My attention was spread thin, and it shows... but I finished the project. When I got to my feature, I used this technique as well - I got acceptable (not stellar) dialog from it. My inattention showed, but it allowed me to develop the skillset to get to my current level of dialog editing (and cleanup -- lots of cleanup).
The goal here isn't necessarily to specify how filmmakers setup their crew and audio equipment, but to teach the skillset to make educated decisions about it. In my case, I'd recorded tons of music and had the technical ground work to know how I could gather sound in an acceptable way.
IMHO, every project is for learning what you need to do on the next one, not for getting it perfect on this one. This keeps forward momentum and when you get to the point that you cross the threshold from obviously amateur shorts to watchable ones (I've just done this in the past few years -- after a over a decade of filmmaking). Rodriguez hit the ground with "El Mariachi", but before that, he'd made hundreds of shorts with his family members learning his craft. I've only ever seen one of these; "Bedhead"
Problem number one is no one told fledgling filmmakers that sound matters. Having not been provided
with that information they act accordingly and ignore sound. Even when editing they are listening on
substandard speakers (probably a laptop) in a substandard room, so hear their own film "in their head"
as they want it to be and not as it really is. If by some chance they hear their project in a better situation
they are horrified at the sound quality. Their immediate impulse is to buy a fix. "A better mic will make
my next project sound better!" So they get a mic and the sound is marginally better. But they still do
not know how to listen. They do not know that they should be integrating sound into their project with
the writing of the script, discussing it in detail during preproduction, actually following through during
production, and spending substantial time on audio post.
Another problem is that many of the answers to "Why do you do it this way?" are based upon
the mergence of technical knowledge and years of experience. Some things are indeed highly technical,
but there are also lots of seeming contradictions due to differences in the types of equipment used and
the situation in which the audio is being recorded plus other factors. That's why people like Harmonica
have a difficult time, there are no cut and dried solutions.
A third issue is that filmmaking is a team sport. No matter what, you need a few key players. I still do not
understand why you would "hire" an experienced, competent DP, yet not "hire" someone experienced and
competent to run sound when sound and vision are equal partners. How many times on this and other
film forums have I read "I just bought the Flubermeister XXW.3 DSLR for $900,000.00. I have 79¢ left for sound,
but I want my sound to be great; what do I get?" This goes back to problem number one; no one was taught
that sound is an EQUAL partner, not some bastard child that can be ignored until it becomes a nuisance. You
throw a few dollars at this problem child in the hopes that he'll behave and leave you alone, but it doesn't work
that way. You need someone at least the equal of your DP to handle production sound. Okay, so your DP only
has two or three shoots under his/her belt, but your DPs responsibility is the visuals and ONLY the visuals.
Please give audio the same courtesy; have someone on your set responsible for production sound and ONLY
production sound who has at the least the same competence as your DP. "Sound is HALF of the experience."
Not a quarter, not a third, not an afterthought, not "we'll fix it in post;" Sound is HALF of the experience."
Now I completely understand A.P.E.s stance on audio post. It is his profession as it is mine. But he works up in
the rarified air of real budgets; I've spent the last ten years down in the weeds with all of the low/no/mini/micro
budget filmmakers. The mission down at this level is convincing people that sound is actually important, that it is,
in fact, "Half of the experience." After all of these years and repeating myself over and over and over and over only a
small handful seem to be paying any attention at all. It is singularly frustrating.
Down here at the low/no/mini/micro budget level there aren't the funds for the type of audio post that people at
A.P.E.s level can provide. We all should keep in mind, however, that huge track counts and in depth real time
processing of the audio (amongst other assets) are relatively new to filmmaking, just as non-linear editing, CGI
and color grading are relatively new to filmmaking. A large percentage of student and fledgling filmmakers become
frustrated if they are required to learn about the history of filmmaking. Oh, yeah, they get into the "old" stuff, but
for some reason the "old school" techniques are boring and have no relevance to filmmaking in the 21st century.
Yet with all of the technology available most indie projects do not even achieve the level of a 30's or 40's film or a
50's/60's TV show. And that level of technical competence should be and can be completely adequate
for most indie projects.
In the 30's and 40's you captured clean intelligible dialog, and most of the "Foley" was captured during production.
A few key sound effects and ambient sounds were put in place and the score was added; three tracks of audio to be
mixed - dialog, Foley/sound effects/ambience and score. Okay, maybe it is not as exciting as a modern sound design,
but many of those films still hold up today. And we do, in fact, have access to at least minimal modern digital audio
post technology. Someone like myself can improve the dialog tracks by using the alt dialog from the unused takes.
We can "checkerboard" the dialog tracks for more control. We have access to decent noise reduction. We can use
Vocalign and digital audio editing techniques so that ADR (called "Looping" back then) is far less painful. We have
access to extensive and relatively inexpensive sound libraries, and even a moderately competent person can do
adequate basic Foley. A single composer can provide a fairly convincing score without the need to hire a room full of
experienced musicians. A passable mix can even be accomplished without the need for a dedicated mix facility. All
of the current low/no/mini/micro budget sound tools to make a film of the same - or even better - technical sonic
quality of a film from the 30's, 40's and 50's is available to the "masses" rather than those tools being the exclusive
property of those with large budgets.
None of this will be up to the standard of modern mega-budget productions, but you don't have the budget to compete.
A budget of 0.1% of even a very modest "hollywood" production would be five figures, and the large majority of indie
filmmakers would be ecstatic with a budget of $50k, or even $10k. Your goal, however, is the same; to tell a story in
such a way that the audience becomes interested and involved.
And so we come back to my basic premise; if you capture clean intelligible production sound you can take advantage
of the basics of current post audio technology and techniques. One of my personal dictums is "Filmmaking is the art
of the invisible; if anyone notices your work you haven't done your job correctly." If the audience can effortlessly -
repeat, EFFORTLESSLY - understand the dialog you have achieved the sonic level of some of the greatest films
made during the first 30 years of "talkies". So at the low/no/mini/micro budget level it comes down to production sound.
You don't have acce$$ to hundred$ of audio track$. You don't have acce$$ to dedicated audio $peciali$t$. You don't
have acce$$ to a dedicated mix facility. But you DO have acce$$ to production sound technology, even at the
low/no/mini/micro budget level, that is, at the very least, equal to what was available 80 years ago. But even today, as
it did back then, it requires knowledge and technique to use correctly. So, if "Sound is half of the experience," shouldn't
you have someone on the set of competency equal to that of your DP to exclusively handle and oversee that equal half?
with that information they act accordingly and ignore sound. Even when editing they are listening on
substandard speakers (probably a laptop) in a substandard room, so hear their own film "in their head"
as they want it to be and not as it really is. If by some chance they hear their project in a better situation
they are horrified at the sound quality. Their immediate impulse is to buy a fix. "A better mic will make
my next project sound better!" So they get a mic and the sound is marginally better. But they still do
not know how to listen. They do not know that they should be integrating sound into their project with
the writing of the script, discussing it in detail during preproduction, actually following through during
production, and spending substantial time on audio post.
Another problem is that many of the answers to "Why do you do it this way?" are based upon
the mergence of technical knowledge and years of experience. Some things are indeed highly technical,
but there are also lots of seeming contradictions due to differences in the types of equipment used and
the situation in which the audio is being recorded plus other factors. That's why people like Harmonica
have a difficult time, there are no cut and dried solutions.
A third issue is that filmmaking is a team sport. No matter what, you need a few key players. I still do not
understand why you would "hire" an experienced, competent DP, yet not "hire" someone experienced and
competent to run sound when sound and vision are equal partners. How many times on this and other
film forums have I read "I just bought the Flubermeister XXW.3 DSLR for $900,000.00. I have 79¢ left for sound,
but I want my sound to be great; what do I get?" This goes back to problem number one; no one was taught
that sound is an EQUAL partner, not some bastard child that can be ignored until it becomes a nuisance. You
throw a few dollars at this problem child in the hopes that he'll behave and leave you alone, but it doesn't work
that way. You need someone at least the equal of your DP to handle production sound. Okay, so your DP only
has two or three shoots under his/her belt, but your DPs responsibility is the visuals and ONLY the visuals.
Please give audio the same courtesy; have someone on your set responsible for production sound and ONLY
production sound who has at the least the same competence as your DP. "Sound is HALF of the experience."
Not a quarter, not a third, not an afterthought, not "we'll fix it in post;" Sound is HALF of the experience."
Now I completely understand A.P.E.s stance on audio post. It is his profession as it is mine. But he works up in
the rarified air of real budgets; I've spent the last ten years down in the weeds with all of the low/no/mini/micro
budget filmmakers. The mission down at this level is convincing people that sound is actually important, that it is,
in fact, "Half of the experience." After all of these years and repeating myself over and over and over and over only a
small handful seem to be paying any attention at all. It is singularly frustrating.
Down here at the low/no/mini/micro budget level there aren't the funds for the type of audio post that people at
A.P.E.s level can provide. We all should keep in mind, however, that huge track counts and in depth real time
processing of the audio (amongst other assets) are relatively new to filmmaking, just as non-linear editing, CGI
and color grading are relatively new to filmmaking. A large percentage of student and fledgling filmmakers become
frustrated if they are required to learn about the history of filmmaking. Oh, yeah, they get into the "old" stuff, but
for some reason the "old school" techniques are boring and have no relevance to filmmaking in the 21st century.
Yet with all of the technology available most indie projects do not even achieve the level of a 30's or 40's film or a
50's/60's TV show. And that level of technical competence should be and can be completely adequate
for most indie projects.
In the 30's and 40's you captured clean intelligible dialog, and most of the "Foley" was captured during production.
A few key sound effects and ambient sounds were put in place and the score was added; three tracks of audio to be
mixed - dialog, Foley/sound effects/ambience and score. Okay, maybe it is not as exciting as a modern sound design,
but many of those films still hold up today. And we do, in fact, have access to at least minimal modern digital audio
post technology. Someone like myself can improve the dialog tracks by using the alt dialog from the unused takes.
We can "checkerboard" the dialog tracks for more control. We have access to decent noise reduction. We can use
Vocalign and digital audio editing techniques so that ADR (called "Looping" back then) is far less painful. We have
access to extensive and relatively inexpensive sound libraries, and even a moderately competent person can do
adequate basic Foley. A single composer can provide a fairly convincing score without the need to hire a room full of
experienced musicians. A passable mix can even be accomplished without the need for a dedicated mix facility. All
of the current low/no/mini/micro budget sound tools to make a film of the same - or even better - technical sonic
quality of a film from the 30's, 40's and 50's is available to the "masses" rather than those tools being the exclusive
property of those with large budgets.
None of this will be up to the standard of modern mega-budget productions, but you don't have the budget to compete.
A budget of 0.1% of even a very modest "hollywood" production would be five figures, and the large majority of indie
filmmakers would be ecstatic with a budget of $50k, or even $10k. Your goal, however, is the same; to tell a story in
such a way that the audience becomes interested and involved.
And so we come back to my basic premise; if you capture clean intelligible production sound you can take advantage
of the basics of current post audio technology and techniques. One of my personal dictums is "Filmmaking is the art
of the invisible; if anyone notices your work you haven't done your job correctly." If the audience can effortlessly -
repeat, EFFORTLESSLY - understand the dialog you have achieved the sonic level of some of the greatest films
made during the first 30 years of "talkies". So at the low/no/mini/micro budget level it comes down to production sound.
You don't have acce$$ to hundred$ of audio track$. You don't have acce$$ to dedicated audio $peciali$t$. You don't
have acce$$ to a dedicated mix facility. But you DO have acce$$ to production sound technology, even at the
low/no/mini/micro budget level, that is, at the very least, equal to what was available 80 years ago. But even today, as
it did back then, it requires knowledge and technique to use correctly. So, if "Sound is half of the experience," shouldn't
you have someone on the set of competency equal to that of your DP to exclusively handle and oversee that equal half?
Let me put my problem with audio this way...
When I think about a shot, I think about the location, let's say a room. I think about where the characters will be in the room, where the camera or cameras will be. Then I think about where the lights need to be so that I can frame my scene and have no lights be in the frame. And then... I'm pretty much done. I have not even thought about sound.
So that's MY problem, I don't know about others. So as a filmmaker, what should I be thinking? For instance, after I think about my lighting, I'll be talking to the DP and we might agree or disagree and then hash it out. What should I be thinking about my sound requirements, and how should I argue my position with the sound guy? What exactly is it that I want the sound guy / girl to do? What is my position on sound exactly?
You see??? I don't know nuthin. Please educate me. And feel free to talk down to me like I'm a four year old. I find that's when I learn the most. Please Alcove, APE and Jax... and anybody else...
thanks
Edit: I suppose what I'm asking is how do I approach the idea of sound, in my head? how do I plan for it? I have accumulated some good equipment by now (I suppose I still need a decent set of headphones ), but the main reason I'm asking the question here is I find that I'm unable to use my brain to solve the sound problem. I don't know enough to reason my way out of a problem or to anticipate a problem and plan for it. I find that extremely frustrating. So what I'm looking for is the absolute basics. I don't care about equipment or talk about equipment. There's plenty of information on this board on that subject. I just want to know how to think about sound.
When I think about a shot, I think about the location, let's say a room. I think about where the characters will be in the room, where the camera or cameras will be. Then I think about where the lights need to be so that I can frame my scene and have no lights be in the frame. And then... I'm pretty much done. I have not even thought about sound.
So that's MY problem, I don't know about others. So as a filmmaker, what should I be thinking? For instance, after I think about my lighting, I'll be talking to the DP and we might agree or disagree and then hash it out. What should I be thinking about my sound requirements, and how should I argue my position with the sound guy? What exactly is it that I want the sound guy / girl to do? What is my position on sound exactly?
You see??? I don't know nuthin. Please educate me. And feel free to talk down to me like I'm a four year old. I find that's when I learn the most. Please Alcove, APE and Jax... and anybody else...
thanks
Edit: I suppose what I'm asking is how do I approach the idea of sound, in my head? how do I plan for it? I have accumulated some good equipment by now (I suppose I still need a decent set of headphones
), but the main reason I'm asking the question here is I find that I'm unable to use my brain to solve the sound problem. I don't know enough to reason my way out of a problem or to anticipate a problem and plan for it. I find that extremely frustrating. So what I'm looking for is the absolute basics. I don't care about equipment or talk about equipment. There's plenty of information on this board on that subject. I just want to know how to think about sound.
Last edited:
The very first thing is to believe to the core of your soul that "Sound is half of the experience." Keep
reminding yourself that sound and vision are equal partners. Keep reminding yourself that sound
and picture are Siamese twins that will die if separated from each other.
You are thinking of sound too late in the process. Start thinking about sound when you are writing the
script. What are the characters hearing? How do they react to sonic stimuli? Why is the sonic stimuli
important to the characters. Why is it important to the plot? Why is it important to the story? Why is
it important to the "message" of the film?
Continue the above process while you are in preproduction. What sounds are important? When putting
together the shooting script and the shot list leave room for the sounds to happen. Leave room for the
characters to react to them. Then continue to reinforce the concept to yourself and your cast and crew
that the dialog is of key importance to the entire process, and that the DP and sound team are EQUAL
PARTNERS in the filmmaking process. The dialog is the verbal interaction between the characters; it
lets the audience know what the characters are feeling and what they are thinking. It is the audience
that you must consider. The audience must effortlessly - repeat, EFFORTLESSLY - understand the dialog.
Just as you plan to control the visual environment with lighting you must also plan to (unobtrusively)
control the sonic environment. This means eliminating to the best of your budget and abilities any sounds
that may distract your audience. So when you scout your locations you must be aware of the locations
aural properties as well as being aware of the visual properties of the location. You don't want to be next
to an airport or a saw mill or a Hells Angels hangout. You need to know if you can turn off refrigerators,
TVs, telephones, computers and other technological devices that emit sounds and may be the cause of
EM and RF interference. You plan on bringing sound blankets, carpeting and other sound absorbent
materials. In conjunction with the wardrobe and props departments you plan on muting shoes,
dinnerware or whatever other costumes and props may cause unwanted noise. You instruct your crew
that they must remain COMPLETELY motionless and ABSOLUTELY SILENT when the camera is rolling.
You instruct your crew that they must wear quiet clothing and footwear.
When you get on location you strictly follow all of the above. You reinforce the concept to yourself and your
cast and crew that the dialog is of key importance to the entire process. You expend the budget, time and
effort to sonically treat the location, wardrobe and props. You do your best to accommodate your sound team
so they have every opportunity to capture clean, intelligible dialog. You provide the time to your sound team
to capture room tones, dialog wilds, WIFO (Wild Foley) and wild effects; these are all important fodder for
audio post.
And every ten seconds you keep repeating to yourself that sound is an equal partner, that "Sound is half of
the experience," that clean intelligible dialog is supremely important to your audience. And also keep reminding
yourself that all of these efforts will make your audio post process much, much easier, much less expensive, and
that you will be able to enhance the sonic experience for the audience rather than correcting audio mistakes
that will detract from their suspension of belief. And also remind yourself that all this time, effort and expense
will make for a better product.
Just like indie filmmakers wish they had that 0.1% of a film budget I wish
that I had the same that 0.1% of Skywalker, Todd A-O or Universal for my
place. I could do an awful lot with another $50k!
that I had the same that 0.1% of Skywalker, Todd A-O or Universal for my
place. I could do an awful lot with another $50k!
Alcove, do me a favor... find me the address of someone who owns a home setup of this quality...
Also, I'll need a list of his weaknesses, and travel schedule. I'll need one more volunteer to say that I was with them all week, just in case a certain group of uniformed men ask them questions on the subject.
When all is said and done, you can use my new studio
Also, I'll need a list of his weaknesses, and travel schedule. I'll need one more volunteer to say that I was with them all week, just in case a certain group of uniformed men ask them questions on the subject.
When all is said and done, you can use my new studio
It's not what you've got, it's what you do with it! As a filmmaker and given the choice, I would far rather have Gary Rydstrom doing the sound on a laptop than an audio college student doing the sound at De Lane Lea. In reality though, it would be a terrible waste to hire Gary Rydstrom and only allow him to work on a laptop!
Unless you have a huge audio post budget you are not going to be able to afford to hire a world class audio post facility/personnel or not be able to hire it for long enough to get world class sound. This is a given and not relevant to either indietalk members or what Alcove and I are trying to explain! I want to make this absolutely clear: To get world class standards you need a world class budget and to get professionally acceptable standards you need a budget for acceptable professionals but neither of these facts is what we are talking about here! What we are talking about is the art of filmmaking and doing the best you can with what you've got, regardless of whether your budget for sound is $1m or just $1!
It's the "doing the best you can" part which IMHO is the problem. How can you "do the best you can" if there's an entire area of filmmaking of which you are largely ignorant and therefore simply ignore. You can have a RED Epic with $80k of accessories but if you don't know anything about lighting, don't have any interest in it, don't plan for it and don't use any lighting, the quality of your camera alone is not going to compensate and you are not going to be "doing the best you can". The best you can, would be to balance your interest, your knowledge and your approach to lighting and also balance your expenditure better between camera and lighting equipment. You need to make this balance whatever budget you've got. Who here would say: "What's the best lighting in the world ... OK I can't afford that, so I'm just going to continue to avoid the issue of lighting and not use any"?
This analogy is not ideal though. From the point of view of sound design, the analogy would be better if virtually no one here even knew what lighting was, and if no one knows what lighting is, how would anyone be able to judge it's importance? I know this sounds completely ridiculous but that's only because you know something about lighting. If you think this analogy is so ridiculous you can't even imagine it, welcome to my world!! Just because you know next to nothing about what sound design is, doesn't mean you can ignore it. What it really means is you don't know enough about filmmaking to make a decent film and you are certainly not "doing the best you can".
I've got some work to finish, when I've got some more time later, I'll try to explain what sound design actually is.
G
Unless you have a huge audio post budget you are not going to be able to afford to hire a world class audio post facility/personnel or not be able to hire it for long enough to get world class sound. This is a given and not relevant to either indietalk members or what Alcove and I are trying to explain! I want to make this absolutely clear: To get world class standards you need a world class budget and to get professionally acceptable standards you need a budget for acceptable professionals but neither of these facts is what we are talking about here! What we are talking about is the art of filmmaking and doing the best you can with what you've got, regardless of whether your budget for sound is $1m or just $1!
It's the "doing the best you can" part which IMHO is the problem. How can you "do the best you can" if there's an entire area of filmmaking of which you are largely ignorant and therefore simply ignore. You can have a RED Epic with $80k of accessories but if you don't know anything about lighting, don't have any interest in it, don't plan for it and don't use any lighting, the quality of your camera alone is not going to compensate and you are not going to be "doing the best you can". The best you can, would be to balance your interest, your knowledge and your approach to lighting and also balance your expenditure better between camera and lighting equipment. You need to make this balance whatever budget you've got. Who here would say: "What's the best lighting in the world ... OK I can't afford that, so I'm just going to continue to avoid the issue of lighting and not use any"?
This analogy is not ideal though. From the point of view of sound design, the analogy would be better if virtually no one here even knew what lighting was, and if no one knows what lighting is, how would anyone be able to judge it's importance? I know this sounds completely ridiculous but that's only because you know something about lighting. If you think this analogy is so ridiculous you can't even imagine it, welcome to my world!! Just because you know next to nothing about what sound design is, doesn't mean you can ignore it. What it really means is you don't know enough about filmmaking to make a decent film and you are certainly not "doing the best you can".
I've got some work to finish, when I've got some more time later, I'll try to explain what sound design actually is.
G