• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

How did they get sound like this for HEAT (1995)?

In this featurette they talk about how all the gunshots you hear in the shootout in heat, were recording live during production cause it sounded a lot better than post production audio gunshots. So they just use live recordings on set. It's 4 minutes into the video exactly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW0yebyGk-8

But how were they able to get the mic close enough to record the gunshots? As you can see in a lot of the shots, with all the action going on, the sound guys would not be able to get close enough to the guns with their mics, to record it. Unless they recorded it from far away, but then the mic would be too far, wouldn't it?
 
It largely depends on the caliber. For smaller handgun rounds like 9mm or .38 you can get away with a lavalier which conceals well on the body, whereas for your larger handgun calibers (.45, .44 magnum, 10mm etc) concealment often isn't an option so you can open carry a standard cardiod. If we're talking .454 casull or S&W .500 you may want to add a 20db pad to accomodate the greater recoil. Be careful with the rifle calibers like .223 and 7.62x39, leave plenty of headroom because too much clipping can be illegal in some states - but you also don't want to use the automatic gain as that could be a federal offense. Naturally a shotgun mic is best for shotguns, although I prefer a short shotgun mic mounted on a pistol grip for indoor work and a longer one for field work...
 
It largely depends on the caliber. For smaller handgun rounds like 9mm or .38 you can get away with a lavalier which conceals well on the body, whereas for your larger handgun calibers (.45, .44 magnum, 10mm etc) concealment often isn't an option so you can open carry a standard cardiod. If we're talking .454 casull or S&W .500 you may want to add a 20db pad to accomodate the greater recoil. Be careful with the rifle calibers like .223 and 7.62x39, leave plenty of headroom because too much clipping can be illegal in some states - but you also don't want to use the automatic gain as that could be a federal offense. Naturally a shotgun mic is best for shotguns, although I prefer a short shotgun mic mounted on a pistol grip for indoor work and a longer one for field work...


Answer of the year.
 
That Youtube link has been blocked in my country because of some copyright infringement, so I can't say for sure but I can give you some generalisations of gun fire sound in features.

I know of no film which uses the production sound of gunfire in the finished film. Contrary to what you've said is stated in the featurette, production sound gunfire always sounds far poorer than post audio gunfire, not least because on set they virtually never, as far as I know, actually use real ammunition but usually something like quarter charged blanks. Recording high quality gunfire requires some specialized knowledge and a range of good equipment. The huge transient peaks caused by a real gunshot would damage many mics, depending on where they were placed, so very careful choice and positioning of the mics is required (note that I said mics and not mic) and of course this is pretty much precluded during filming. I personally know of no examples of commercial features where they have used or would even consider using production sound for the gunshots. Most likely you either misunderstood what was said or what was said was incorrect. It's not uncommon, as a bit of a marketing ploy, to state in featurettes that "real" and "authentic" sounds were recorded rather than sourced or manufactured in post.

...leave plenty of headroom because too much clipping can be illegal in some states.

If you are talking about TV broadcast, clipping in the final mix is illegal in every state, even just once! It would never get that far though because you would fail QC and have your film/program rejected before it could be aired and break the law. It's likely you would fail QC even if the gunshot was 6dB or so below the clipping point, unless you had the specialist equipment to measure it accurately.

G
 
Oh, c'mon APE, can't you see IDOMs joke? Well, maybe not... We've been having a national debate here in the US about gun laws, part of which has been the number of rounds that can be carried in the clip - hence the "too much clipping" reference.

-*-*-*-*-*-

What the director really liked, IMHO, was the ambient sound of the location - the way the shots echoed in the "concrete canyons" of the location.

Personally I thought the shots sounded rather bland. I would have supported the sound of the location gunshots with better weapons sounds. But it's all a matter of taste, and the director has the final say.
 
Oh okay. Personally I though it's the best gunfire I've ever heard in a movie. But their are several other great ones too.

I was just wondering how they got the mics close enough. If the actors wore lavs, they would be moving around too much, for the lavs to pick it up, without getting unwanted sounds from the actors' moving clothes.
 
I know of no film which uses the production sound of gunfire in the finished film. Contrary to what you've said is stated in the featurette, production sound gunfire always sounds far poorer than post audio gunfire, not least because on set they virtually never, as far as I know, actually use real ammunition but usually something like quarter charged blanks.

All joking aside - Have you seen the shootout scene in Heat that the featurette is from? The sound of the gunfire is actually very unique in terms of on-screen gunfire, the key component is that you hear the shots as they would sound echoing in the glass canyons of downtown LA. Michael Mann is famous for going to ridiculous lengths to get realism in his films, especially with firearms - there are clips from Miami Vice (the tv show, not the more recent movie) that are still referenced in firearms training today. The featurette shows the actors running the choreography for the scene on a live range with real ammunition. I'd be very surprised if it turned out they didn't actually use a good deal of the production sound as stated in the featurette - they actually talk about having sound fx mixed in in the pre-dub stage and Mann insisted they take it out because it didn't come close to what it sounded like on set. It's nothing like typical gun sound fx, it's a thundering cascade of noise echoing among the buildings.

As for the original question of how they recorded it - there are plenty of shots in the featurette that show the boom op following along with the action. I don't really understand how H44 even came up with that question after watching it as it's all shown right there. Getting close enough isn't an issue with something as loud as a gun, especially when the goal is specifically to capture the sound of the guns in the environment. I would imagine getting too close would be more of a concern.

Not that any of this really matters because no one around here is likely to be recording live gunfire for their films.
 
I can't see the featurette on Youtube as it's blocked in my country. I did see Heat many years ago and don't remember being blown away by the gunfire SFX, Saving Private Ryan on the other hand did blow me away in this and most other sound design respects. Another interesting featurette on the sound of gunfire (and cannon fire) is on the Master & Commander DVD. Peter Weir explains very emphatically how they spent inordinate amounts of time and money creating authentic SFX but when recording the cannon, it had a very surprising bell like tone when fired, not at all what you would expect a cannon to sound like. So they wrapped the barrel with carpets to eliminate the ring. Now I don't know much about C18th naval warfare but I don't think they wrapped their cannons' barrels with carpets at that time! The Master & Commander featurette is about the best I've seen on how gunfire (and cannon fire) is manufactured in post and the actual film itself is one of the best examples of modern surround sound design.

Also, in the scenario you describe a shotgun mic (on it's own) would be about the worst choice for recording the gunfire, as a shotgun mic is specifically designed to try and eliminate sound reflections and other sounds/noises being produced which do not occur directly in front of it. While a shotgun mic is often used to record the sound of the gun itself, the gun's mechanism or the initial crack of the bullet being fired, several other mics would almost certainly also have been used simultaneously to record the echoes and reverb of the location and to avoid what would otherwise likely be a very thin and lifeless recording of the gunfire.

G
 
I recently AC'd on a short action film in which there were a couple of shootout scenes with actors firing blanks.

The sound guy captured all the audio of it (thou whether any of it will be used I don't know). He had very different microphones from what he was using for dialogue, and the placement was very interesting. Not sure what they were or why they were placed where they were (Im no soundie), but I think the point is that a real PSM with a lot of experience should b able to advise you the best way to record it on set.
 
All joking aside - Have you seen the shootout scene in Heat that the featurette is from? The sound of the gunfire is actually very unique in terms of on-screen gunfire, the key component is that you hear the shots as they would sound echoing in the glass canyons of downtown LA. Michael Mann is famous for going to ridiculous lengths to get realism in his films, especially with firearms - there are clips from Miami Vice (the tv show, not the more recent movie) that are still referenced in firearms training today. The featurette shows the actors running the choreography for the scene on a live range with real ammunition. I'd be very surprised if it turned out they didn't actually use a good deal of the production sound as stated in the featurette - they actually talk about having sound fx mixed in in the pre-dub stage and Mann insisted they take it out because it didn't come close to what it sounded like on set. It's nothing like typical gun sound fx, it's a thundering cascade of noise echoing among the buildings.

As for the original question of how they recorded it - there are plenty of shots in the featurette that show the boom op following along with the action. I don't really understand how H44 even came up with that question after watching it as it's all shown right there. Getting close enough isn't an issue with something as loud as a gun, especially when the goal is specifically to capture the sound of the guns in the environment. I would imagine getting too close would be more of a concern.

Not that any of this really matters because no one around here is likely to be recording live gunfire for their films.

Well the youtube video in my computer is very pixelated so I did not see the sound guys in the shots at first. I saw one sound guy following De Niro, but he is holding the mic further than two feet away. I was told before further than two feet is a no no, but perhaps with louder sounding gun fire it's okay?
 
I was told before further than two feet is a no no, but perhaps with louder sounding gun fire it's okay?

You're joking right? You honestly think you have to get the mic no further than 2 feet away no matter what you're recording? What happens if a director wants you to record the sound of a jumbo jet at full throttle before it starts it's take-off run? Are you going to demand the budget for a set of flame retardant underwear and get your mic 2ft away from it's engine? Good luck getting a decent level from the puddle of molten components which a tenth of a second earlier was a microphone!

Use your loaf H44, why have you been told to get your mic two feet away from the sound source, what reason could there be for having your mic this close? There's no absolute rule, except that you want to record the best sound you can and if that means moving the mic closer or further away (filming restrictions allowing), that's what you do.

There's another consideration with this discussion about recording realistic SFX, and that is; what is "realistic" and is that what we really want? Weapons fire sounds very different right up close than it does from 20m away and very different again at 200m away, so which "reality" are we after? If it's the former you are out of luck because the SPL of the transient peaks of gunshots are beyond what even a theatrical sound system can reproduce and even if it weren't, you'd have your audience leaving the cinema with their hands over their ears. In practice, weapons fire in films is often a composite of different sound perspectives layered together, this may not be "realistic" but it is more dramatic and more in line with how audiences expect gunfire to sound. I've said before, film sound is not about re-creating reality but about creating an illusion of a reality. The difference between the two might not sound like much on the face of it but can be huge.

G
 
Back
Top