short film I worked on. The DoP was also the Editor. He insisted on dubbing most of the film. Now, although it sounds good, there is still few scenes where you can tell its dubbed...Do most editors prefer dubbing? is it better practice etc
-
Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.
how much is 'dubbed'
- Thread starter derek smith
- Start date
it made me curious...as few of the scenes without dubbing, sound great...but, his preference was dubbing...different strokes for different folks, I suppose
It was often the practice in the Golden Age of film, and a few decades after, to dub dialogue for outdoors: which is why certain exterior scenes in movies sound as tinny as they did even compared to the rest of the audio. I'm not sure how often they still dub outdoor scenes, as shot-gun mics and other boom mics are far far better these days than they used to be at blocking out unwanted noise and zeroing in on the actor's voices.
If every environment in your film isn't particularly quiet, dubbing the whole thing might make sense. But something I think a lot of indie filmmakers don't end up doing is approaching their dubbing like they would their production sound recording. Instead of using a condenser mic while in the recording booth, why not still use a boom mic? And instead of standing 10 inches away from the mic, why not stand 3 feet from it like you would have to do on set? This would allow you to at least get a similar sound from that type of mic, and a similar realistic distance from it.
The only issue left would be the performance, and whether or nor your actors can recapture what they did on set with the same conviction and tone of voice: all while facing directly towards a microphone.
It's not the editors job to decide what dialog needs to be replaced; that's the job of the supervising sound editor - working in conjunction with the director, of course.
If it looks/sounds dubbed then either the ADR isn't right, the mix is at fault, or both.
It is NOT better practice, although it may be your editors preference.
my editor seems to love dubbing....going to ask him about it tonight...genuinely interested.....Oh, my Crew consisted of 3 people, so he was the sound / camera man / editor.....I've no experience, as it was my first project, so I put my faith in him....first screening in a cinema we've hired is next Sat, so will know then
MOS baby... MOS!
I always lean full ADR productions and get a euphoric rush from the process. It is just as viable (though unpopular) a creative decision that is made before a single frame is shot as committing to only using available light, shooting anamorphic or abstaining from CGI.
There are several factors at play for this seemingly unorthodox personal viewpoint of mine including but not limited to the expansive creative freedom it gives me in the field and in post, my background is in audio/music production so its not only breezy for me but enjoyable, admittedly it reflects more of the genres I admire, my crew and production costs are halved, oh... and I am a control freak.
It's actually far from a Golden Age technique. Perhaps a dirty little secret but ADR is rampant in current Hollywood blockbusters, some estimate as high as 40% of films, especially action flicks. Someone once told me that Optimus Prime loops all of his lines, but that is unconfirmed. (Just kidding, I have no idea about that, I would never actually watch one of those movies).
It is indeed an extra step for the actors but I consider it a wash overall. In my experience they are always a bit more comfortable, unstressed, perhaps looser, during principal photography and they often love the opportunity to really get deep into character in a safer more controlled environment and re-approach the delivery of dialog in a more focused manner. It's like a second chance to tweak their character. They often haven't experienced ADR before they get in my clutches so I get a lot of kid in a candy store reactions, like they are becoming a broader artist or something.
It's a god mode thing for sure.
I think a lot of indie guys are frightened by the concept, 'does not compute', 'not what i was taught', but once I realized its not all that uncommon in film and completely exclusive in music videos and animation it tends to make one braver. Now I actually have trouble shooting sound projects - I feel as if i am staring at a canvas but all my brushes have been ripped away. Issues.
I notice bad VO in stuff all the time, but I notice bad audio far more.
Man this whole discussion makes me want to run out and watch Apocalypse Now... now.
NOTE: Let's just say I am a bit of a Spaghetti Western "enthusiast", so while I suggest you disregard all of my commentary, you should sooooo have your DoP reach out to me.
I always lean full ADR productions and get a euphoric rush from the process. It is just as viable (though unpopular) a creative decision that is made before a single frame is shot as committing to only using available light, shooting anamorphic or abstaining from CGI.
There are several factors at play for this seemingly unorthodox personal viewpoint of mine including but not limited to the expansive creative freedom it gives me in the field and in post, my background is in audio/music production so its not only breezy for me but enjoyable, admittedly it reflects more of the genres I admire, my crew and production costs are halved, oh... and I am a control freak.
It's actually far from a Golden Age technique. Perhaps a dirty little secret but ADR is rampant in current Hollywood blockbusters, some estimate as high as 40% of films, especially action flicks. Someone once told me that Optimus Prime loops all of his lines, but that is unconfirmed. (Just kidding, I have no idea about that, I would never actually watch one of those movies).
It is indeed an extra step for the actors but I consider it a wash overall. In my experience they are always a bit more comfortable, unstressed, perhaps looser, during principal photography and they often love the opportunity to really get deep into character in a safer more controlled environment and re-approach the delivery of dialog in a more focused manner. It's like a second chance to tweak their character. They often haven't experienced ADR before they get in my clutches so I get a lot of kid in a candy store reactions, like they are becoming a broader artist or something.
It's a god mode thing for sure.
I think a lot of indie guys are frightened by the concept, 'does not compute', 'not what i was taught', but once I realized its not all that uncommon in film and completely exclusive in music videos and animation it tends to make one braver. Now I actually have trouble shooting sound projects - I feel as if i am staring at a canvas but all my brushes have been ripped away. Issues.
I notice bad VO in stuff all the time, but I notice bad audio far more.
Man this whole discussion makes me want to run out and watch Apocalypse Now... now.
NOTE: Let's just say I am a bit of a Spaghetti Western "enthusiast", so while I suggest you disregard all of my commentary, you should sooooo have your DoP reach out to me.
Last edited:
care to explain? excuse the ignorance, im a newbie
Traditionally, if shooting sound for final product by choice, you would want one technical person dedicated to managing the sound (production sound mixer) and a separate person dedicated to managing the video (DP).
Doesn't apply to you and your situation I am betting since your DP probably knew from go he was shooting MOS, so this is a non-factor. In fact recording some in camera sound no matter how rough is preferred for guide tracks which can help with the looping in post.
Not to mention a DP also handling the sound, on an indie production, is probably more common than shooting a 10 minute dialog scene in a diner... and that is saying something.
Doesn't apply to you and your situation I am betting since your DP probably knew from go he was shooting MOS, so this is a non-factor. In fact recording some in camera sound no matter how rough is preferred for guide tracks which can help with the looping in post.
Not to mention a DP also handling the sound, on an indie production, is probably more common than shooting a 10 minute dialog scene in a diner... and that is saying something.
Last edited:
It's impossible to hold the camera and hold the microphone at the same time as one person and still get a quality result.
If you have wireless lavs it can be done.
Unfortunately, not a lot of clearing up has been done in this thread, it's still littered with inaccurate or incorrect information!
First off, there's some confusion in terminology. Dubbing is when dialogue is recorded in a studio without reference to any existing audio recording. Either because production sound has not been recorded (filmed MOS), one or more words need to be changed or because the Dubbed dialogue needs to be in a different language. ADR (Automatic Dialogue Replacement) is, as the term would suggest, the replacement of the production dialogue, word for word, with reference to the production sound recordings. ADR is sometimes called "looping", an old film term (still in use) when short loops of film were actually used for the process. This raises a question for Guanto; if you film MOS, how do you do ADR?
I'm not totally clear but it seems the OP is probably talking about ADR, not dubbing! As there is no reference, dubbing is extremely difficult and time consuming to accurately sync and even with skill and time, dubbing rarely sounds quite right to an audience. For this reason dubbing is universally avoided except when changing the language or in a few extreme filming situations. ADR is also virtually always a last resort and avoided where possible. Even with highly experienced pro actors, the performance is virtually never as convincing. Additionally, it's time consuming and expensive to do it right. And lastly, it's more difficult to mix, IE., it requires more time and skill.
Someone above mentioned Hollywood blockbusters use as much as 40% ADR. That statement was untrue, the average would be closer to 60%, while the highest usage would be over 90%, although that's rare. It should be noted that no one, least of all the Directors, do this out of choice! They do it because with so much action, props and equipment it's often impossible to capture perfectly clean production sound, baring in mind the ubiquitous commercial requirement of M&E mixes. Many professional directors despise ADR, most just dislike it and some have an almost pathological hatred for it! Micheal Mann is well know for his ADR'ophobia and I believe that the audio post team for "Black Hat" were forbidden to use any ADR! Most pro actors also dislike or despise it, although there is the odd exception, apparently Brando liked ADR and sometimes deliberately mumbled his lines during filming to force it's use. In my 20 years in the biz, I personally have never come across an actor who liked ADR.
As Alcove mentioned, it would never be the decision of the picture editor as to where ADR would be employed. As he also mentioned and hopefully as I've reinforced, it is not the better choice!
What I've discussed above is standard professional practice and is often in response to the M&E requirement. There are some additional differences between professional films and no budget/amateur films:
1. Not only is the technical quality of the audio usually lower but there is usually only rudimentary or no consideration/implementation of audio perspective. Ironically, not having good or any audio perspective makes the use of ADR easier, as obviously the time and skill to record and mix ADR which matches the audio perspective is not required!
2. The actors are usually quite (or very) poor. The less convincing nature of ADR performances could therefore be less noticeable/relevant.
3. Perfectly accurate sync is rarely a consideration as the weaknesses mentioned above and other filmmaking weaknesses caused by lack of knowledge, experience and/or budget make a lack of perfect sync less noticeable. Again, this would make ADR (and even dubbing) easier.
What you've described is more along the lines of how ADR is recorded professionally. It's important to make the distinction because professional ADR is recorded on commercial ADR stages, which are purpose built large, acoustically treated rooms. The result is (hopefully) the similar realistic distance you mentioned and a neutral acoustic which makes it easier to manipulate and match the audio perspective/acoustics of the filming location. For the vast majority of no budget filmmakers your advice is not so good because they don't have access to a commercial ADR stage! Standing 3ft from the mic will raise the level of the room acoustics and will make matching the ADR to the filming location either more difficult or impossible.
Traditionally there would be at least a 3 person production sound team and probably 4 or more. A Boom Op, a Cable person, a Tape Op and a Production Sound Mixer. On no/nano budget productions it's common to find just one person partially fulfilling all these roles, although a two person team is probably just as common.
OP: It's not realistic to expect any one person to competently fulfil the roles of DOP, cameraman and the production sound team simultaneously (even if only using lavs)!
G
Last edited:
Just to add to APEs comments.....
Most high-budget productions will ADR anything and everything that has even the remotest possibility of having an audio problem (plus all of the other things, such as replacing swear words for broadcast, etc.). This is strictly a budgetary/financial decision; it's cheaper than bringing the talent back over and over again as dialog problems crop up. However, just because it was recorded does not mean that it will be used in the final mix.
"Huh?" I hear you ask!
Dialog editors can accomplish astounding deeds by using the dialog/audio from the takes that did not make it into the final cut and by utilizing dialog wilds if the production had the good sense to do this.
Rerecording mixers have an impressive array of softwares and lots of processing power to clean up bad audio. Even I am still amazed at how much a skilled rerecording mixer can save of the production dialog.
So, even though they may have recorded ADR for 75% of the film the ADR is not necessarily used in the final mix. In an interview with Richard Beggs (sound designer / supervising sound editor) said they had done a lot of ADR on "Children of Men" and, even he was impressed with how much production dialog Chris Burdon (rerecording mixer) and his team were able to save; despite all of the action the final mix of "Children of Men" is predominantly production dialog.
As always I suggest that you pick up "The Location Sound Bible" by Ric Viers; a good introduction into the world of production sound.
Most high-budget productions will ADR anything and everything that has even the remotest possibility of having an audio problem (plus all of the other things, such as replacing swear words for broadcast, etc.). This is strictly a budgetary/financial decision; it's cheaper than bringing the talent back over and over again as dialog problems crop up. However, just because it was recorded does not mean that it will be used in the final mix.
"Huh?" I hear you ask!
Dialog editors can accomplish astounding deeds by using the dialog/audio from the takes that did not make it into the final cut and by utilizing dialog wilds if the production had the good sense to do this.
Rerecording mixers have an impressive array of softwares and lots of processing power to clean up bad audio. Even I am still amazed at how much a skilled rerecording mixer can save of the production dialog.
So, even though they may have recorded ADR for 75% of the film the ADR is not necessarily used in the final mix. In an interview with Richard Beggs (sound designer / supervising sound editor) said they had done a lot of ADR on "Children of Men" and, even he was impressed with how much production dialog Chris Burdon (rerecording mixer) and his team were able to save; despite all of the action the final mix of "Children of Men" is predominantly production dialog.
As always I suggest that you pick up "The Location Sound Bible" by Ric Viers; a good introduction into the world of production sound.
Your project will only look as good as it sounds, because
"Sound is half of the experience"
If your film looks terrible but has great sound, people might just think it's your aesthetic.
If your film looks great and has bad sound, people will think you're an amateur.
Sound is the first indicator to the industry that you know what you're doing.
"Sound is half of the experience"
If your film looks terrible but has great sound, people might just think it's your aesthetic.
If your film looks great and has bad sound, people will think you're an amateur.
Sound is the first indicator to the industry that you know what you're doing.
I think, at the no/lo budget level, we should avoid ADR if we can help it. I've done it once and it just sounds horrible. It sounds out of place. The tension in the voice is not the same. It just feels fake. Granted, the fault was mine, as I probably didn't do the ADRing correctly. But I wasn't and still am not, aware of the techniques they use to ADR properly. Maybe they show the actors the footage, the actual scenes, when they're ADRing. I didn't do that. I just recorded a conversation when two people were walking in the park. So I thought, there's probably nothing to it. And it just sounds ridiculous.
I think at our budget levels, it's better to get the sound during production. It's definitely a whole lot cheaper. So my suggestion would be to avoid it if you can.
I think at our budget levels, it's better to get the sound during production. It's definitely a whole lot cheaper. So my suggestion would be to avoid it if you can.
As ~AudioPostExpert had clarified, ADR is the process by which you are carefully replacing the dialogue in a photographed scene with cleaner and more controlled dialogue recorded in a recording booth. Therefore the actual scene is required in order for the dialogue to match. Otherwise, it could have all sorts of synching problems.
Now if you're simply recording dialogue for use as a sound effect that will add to the background walla and other crowd or ambient noise, then you can record that at least a few different ways, and its effectiveness will depend on how prominent it is in the soundtrack (which it shouldn't be if its for a background conversation), and how well-integrated it is into the environment with EQ, reverb, and dampening or such things as that.
I would also argue that low/no-budget projects will suffer on ADR not primarily because of poor recording techniques, but because of poor sound design, but more-so poor voice acting skills. Most people just aren't the same standing still behind a mic, reading off text and watching a screen. For those not used to it, it can often restrict you and remove your natural sprightliness, energy, or conviction in your performance. And so many do not sound as convincing behind a mic. Though in some unique cases, certain actors have actually sounded more at home and entertaining behind a mic rather than on camera. People like Don Adams, Patrick Warburton, and Hans Conried for instance. Or even Madonna, as it turns out.
I'm going to go against the grain just a little bit here…
It is extra work to do ADR, but if you have the time it is easier and cheaper to get quality, high fidelity sound for your film this way.
APE is talking about a 3 or 4 man production sound team, do you have any idea how much that costs to hire those professionals?
You could record mic on camera dialogue by yourself. Bring in actors and do ADR in a controlled environment, with only 1 type of nice microphone. now you have high fidelity sound and you didn't have to hire an entire team of people to do it.
Yes obviously there are drawbacks. I'm just putting it out there as a possibility. The guy who made Primer did this and it took him a long time in post production but it paid off in the end for him.
Everything is a trade off of time and/or money so it's possible to do this without all the money if you've got the time.
It is extra work to do ADR, but if you have the time it is easier and cheaper to get quality, high fidelity sound for your film this way.
APE is talking about a 3 or 4 man production sound team, do you have any idea how much that costs to hire those professionals?
You could record mic on camera dialogue by yourself. Bring in actors and do ADR in a controlled environment, with only 1 type of nice microphone. now you have high fidelity sound and you didn't have to hire an entire team of people to do it.
Yes obviously there are drawbacks. I'm just putting it out there as a possibility. The guy who made Primer did this and it took him a long time in post production but it paid off in the end for him.
Everything is a trade off of time and/or money so it's possible to do this without all the money if you've got the time.
I do sense some confusion, but only just now.
The terms dubbing and ADR are completely interchangeable at every level of the industry. Sometimes you hear the "process" referred to as ADR while the act of doing it referred to as "dubbing" because "ADRing" is silly to say (kind of like "DVRing" come to think of it... what happened to good old "Taping"?) , but still a distinction without a difference. It was called an "ADR session" when Jones did Vader and it was called an ADR session when I worked on an animated film in 2012. The few Prowse lines that were even correct Jones didn't "sync with" always setting his own pacing and delivery and of course there was no pre-recorded dialog for the animation. All universally considered ADR.
By watching lips very carefully and doing a few takes... or by listening to scratch tracks if we happened to catch good enough audio. MOS in the modern sense doesn't have to mean complete absence of sound, just as cameras are no longer actually utilizing "motors". Rather it just means no special focus or care for sound, roll it and if we get something great. Either way, guide tracks or silence, we will be post syncing all the dialog in our ADR sessions.
Wow its hard to believe something so despised and showstopping consistently becomes 40%... oh wait sorry... 60% of a film. That's because ADR is not the plague you've painted from your experience. And as mentioned it also can be, was and still is a creative or budgetary decision that is made during the conceptualization of a project. Just because it is not popular and/or infrequent doesn't mean it is always "last resort". A contemporary Hollywood blockbuster shot in Black and White wass not a last resort decision.
And then that note should quickly be stricken from the record. Wow. Listen, I know it's not exactly a trending art form or anything, but just because you are not a connoisseur of ADR projects doesn't mean you should speak on behalf of all directors on the matter (or any matter, please). Some of my favorite directors, films and entire genre's have gone into production knowing full well that all dialog would happily be done in post. The fact that you shouted "no one does this out of choice!" is a ridiculous, uninformed and kind of haughty statement. Even if you were legitimately unaware of some of the well known films of the past few decades that intentionally used 100% ADR - you learned of at least two creatives who fancy the choice up front right here in this very string, including the protagonist of the OP's post for cryin' out loud. *facepalm*
Yes of course, ADR used as supplement and repair is by far the majority, no one will argue that, in fact I didn't think it had to be mentioned. But this obviously doesn't exclude the minority.
12 years here. I've come across maybe a bakers dozen... but then again I tend to gravitate towards projects that are ADR-centric. Glad we got this straight.
Ironically, on indie projects, it is almost exclusively the editor who is calling the director after sorting through all the source footage to say "Um... I hope are you familiar with ADR and please tell me you didn't throw away your cast contact sheet?"
So much wasted bandwidth here on sound stages and sennheisers. To what end? Once again I feel this is just not on point for the OP or an independent film forum.
ADR can, and has been, a creative choice, and on an independent budget, it's totally do-able in a half-way decent home studio. It's really not any scarier than any other aspect of filmmaking once you dig in, it can provide some very cool second chance creative opportunities and it has the potential to be light years ahead of the quality captured on set on crew and/or equipment challenged productions. But yes, it requires someone who knows their way around a DAW and/or is familiar with setting up an ADR session or at least has the time to explore the ADR features of their NLE (PPro now includes a lot of the Audition functionality for those unaware/interested) and watch a few of the better tutorials on the subject. And if any of that shocks anyone well here is another news flash... Getting good video requires someone skilled in ISO's, F-stops, shutter speeds and frame rates... among a few other things.
Is there an echo in here?
Oh man I second this. When shooting sound of course, Wilds are an often overlooked routine on indy shoots and needn't be. These are easy to get and talent is almost always willing if not excited to jump aside and do these with you, kind of like my ADR sessions.
Yeah let's just say it's a wee bit more involved than that, lol. Hey I couldn't have made it more clear that I not only have a love of ADR, but a knack for it. I accept I'm unique in both regards. I hope my enthusiasm for this part of the craft (a craft within itself to be sure) didn't paint it as a work-free unskilled process.
Understood. However you could swap out your ADR example above with just about any other aspect of filmmaking and it would read the same in that context right? This is to say if you are "not aware of proper techniques" then you may not be the best guy to caution against it. This is akin to saying I don't know how to white balance or focus pull so I strongly suggest everyone to just leave their cameras on auto.... or I don't know how to read a vector scope or employ a LUT so I would urge everyone to just skip color grading. You know what i mean?
This depends on your situation. For example on my independent projects I would have to pay dearly for a sound crew if I wanted the best possibly in field audio (I try and set my bar high) because I am neither comfortable with the pressures of constantly managing it or not fcking it up, nor am I physically available to do it (directing and acting and producing and all). However I do have a not-too-shabby home studio from my past life and really excel at/enjoy being in that world - so for me it's bring on the free ADR sessions in a comfortable and controlled environment.
Last edited: