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
I'm not sure it's quite the same. Time and money are the most important factors, as far as I'm concerned. Learning how to focus pull or how white balancing works, can cost one time, not money. Doing ADR in a satisfactory way for people who're not professionals, will cost more than time. It'll cost money for studio time, getting your actors back etc. That is why I'm advising against it. It's not something I can sit at a computer, or watch youtube videos to do on my own time.
That is just typical elitist independent filmmaker bullshit. I don't have to be an expert at camera technique to know what kind of framing I like. I don't have to be an expert at ADR to know that I like production sound better. I don't have to be an expert at ADR to know that in order to get decent believable ADR, I'd have to spend a lot of money. I don't really have to be an expert at anything in particular to have practical ideas about something, at the no/lo budet level. That's what I do. I don't provide advice for professionals. I comment for others with tight budgets, schedules and resources.
For those of us without a home studio like yours, it's much cheaper to pay for the sound crew, than to pay for a proper ADR session.
OK, we differ on that.
Huh? Are you learning to pull focus and white balance on an imaginary camera or something?
So you can sit in your backyard and teach yourself how to focus pull and white balance in a satisfactory way and that only costs you time. But you can't sit at a computer or watch youtube videos to teach yourself ADR in a satisfactory way? Which also only costs you time?
I'm also not sure why you are saying it's OK for the guy capturing the video to not be "professional" but the guy doing ADR must be. Both guys can be adequate and get a decent result from both aspects of filmmaking if they want to or know how to.
Some filmmakers, if they lean more DP, may sink all their cash into a killer camera and take the time to learn the intricacies of using it to get good images. Others who may have a slant towards editing or sound design may opt to instead "rent a camera" and then sink their cash into a good computer, a decent mic and some foam on the walls of their spare room and use their free time to learn the art of editing or sound design. It's all the same.
I feel like you may be letting what you have experience with, or what you enjoy the most, dictate what you perceive as being easy/free and difficult/costly.
You don't have to be an expert at anything to subjectively think it's "good" or "bad". Agreed.
You were very forthcoming about this being an area that you personally didn't have a grasp on, and even shared your workflow to prove it. I just didn't know why after that clear self admission of non-interest or non-expertise you felt compelled to advise everyone against it. What if someone is interested or expert in ADR? or willing to learn it on their own free time like you learned your camera techniques. Sorry the stance just confused me, didn't mean to come off as elitist bullshit by use of a few analogies.
So you feel you would have to spend money on equipment, schooling or hiring someone who could do this for you to get good ADR. Then you definitely shouldn't do that if you don't want to. What I'm trying to say is at some point you did spend money on some aspect of your filmmaking that you wanted to be "decent believable"... and maybe you shouldn't necessarily advise against certain techniques or processes just because you chose not to spend money or time or have talent in those areas. Other people may just be deciding where to spend their money or their study time, and depending on what they are into or what types of projects they will be working on the most they may be leaning towards some gear or some research materials that can incorporate things like basic ADR at an indie level. Those same people may have a helluva time with some other aspect of filmmaking though that you are better set up for based on where you've chosen to spend your time and money, we don't want them advising against those things that they chose not to sink their teeth into either.
I'm with you on this more than you think man. ADR comes easy to me and I like it, it, and sound in general, is where I've spent a lot of time and some hard earned paychecks. You probably have way better gear and talent than me in other areas. I just wouldn't want to discourage anyone even at an indie level from slamming a mic into their NLE and recording some ADR and then spending 100 man hours on their own dime tweaking it in post anymore than I would want to discourage someone from learning the art of decent lighting or color grading... or even screenwriting (an aspect of filmmaking many find frustrating and out of reach)
Well my ADR sessions will cost you far less than a full sound crew at scale, so keep that in mind if you get into a pinch
I may have oversold my "studio". A lot of people have computers and microphones nowadays, it could be much cheaper for them to give it a shot if they had or even desired to. And by the same token, of those who may have a slightly better post-sound set-up and passion, it may be cheaper for them to get a DoP if they don't have a good eye or a good camera like you... this is to say a filmmaker who leans towards sound with his resources still has a shot at telling a good story - its just moving money and personal filmmaking priorities from one bucket to the other.
---
To be honest the OP didn't ask if he should use ADR or not, in fact he sorta said the opposite, ADR was mandated for this project. I'm not sure how we spiraled away from that. I specifically jumped on this thread solely because OP was not talking about the more typical use of ADR, nor did he ask for a schooling in typical ADR usage, in fact he was referencing the apparently elusive more artistic side of MOS/ADR/Dubbing from go - a style that I myself love to employ if the project is right. I wanted him to know that his certifiable DP had a kindred spirit in both me and a few heavyweights out there. Clearly cost or belief in decent believable ADR abilities was not an issue for them, in fact it sounds like he nailed it for the most part, which is winning, as the video may have only been nailed "for the most part" too. OP did ask if it was the norm to have an ADR agenda as a creative choice vs a repair and enhance position. I proudly agreed it was delightfully unorthodox but it is far from non-existent... in this indie thread or in Hollywood at large. I really find a surreal charm in fully ADR productions -- but bear in mind I choose to work in some very specific genres and geekgasm over some very specific films. I wouldn't suggest it for most people or projects, but I will certainly celebrate one that chose to do it, that's awesome in my book and I hope it gives it a cool vibe that most can't put their finger on... not unlike how impalpably hypnotizing Sergio's Clint and LVC were.
.
Last edited:
Okay, let's just get the basics of where I'm coming from out there.
My premise is that the OP is not an expert at audio, but is having difficulty figuring out how to get proper audio for his films. My assumption is that he's not going to become an expert at ADR tomorrow, despite the fact that he may actually discover a knack for it, which I clearly don't.
Also, the main outlook I bring to no/lo budget filmmaking is that I'm not going to get anything perfect. Whether it's sound design or whether it's lighting or acting or set design. What I do is try to get over a visual threshold, where the average viewer, however sophisticated some may claim modern viewers are, get fooled into believing the visuals belong in a studio production (I'm not saying that I've achieved that. I'm saying that's my goal.). However, I find that to fool the audience when it comes to audio, is extremely difficult. They invariably tune out of the story when the audio is bad. They don't tune out because the color correction has the "wrong" skin tone, whatever that is (every movie I watch seems to define it's own skin tone and nobody seems to complain), or because the use of an optical flare is straining to the eyes.
So where I'm coming from, doing audio, believably, is difficult, and quite beyond my skill level.
There's a lot of things involved here. Just think about what you're saying. In order to ADR cheaply & believably, you have to:
1. Have decent recording equipment
2. Have a semi sound proof recording environment with foam and everything.
3. You have to have actors back. Feed your actors again. Maybe even pay them.
4. They have to be in the right state of tension as in the movie. Or you have to do it over and over again until achieved
5. You have to know how to do audio post properly. You have to know what "Ambience Matching" is, or your audio is going to sound out of place. You have to develop some sort of acceptable skill level at audio post and have decent audio post software to be able to do all of this.
You're talking production house level involvement.
All I did was shoot two people walking at about 100 meters away, where they're specks on the screen (I laved them, but the rustling sound was horrible), so I thought I could just re-record them later, and though the viewer may never know, I feel that the soul in the audio in the lav, is missing in the ADR session, even though you can barely see them on screen. The difference in audio is nuanced, but I can feel it. (I'm trying to clean up the lav audio as I write this) Maybe Derek can develop these skills overnight. Maybe. But I'm advising him on the basis that it may in fact be a lot easier just to get the production sound. Maybe it's bad advice for someone with your skillset. But for most filmmakers starting out, I'd say it's practical advice.
I've never advocated anybody to get a killer camera. Although I will say, that I'm changing my opinion on that. I think a better camera makes it easier to light cheaply.
That's a nice story, for a debate online. You may be among a handful of independent filmmakers with a 'slant' towards audio or sound design. But practically speaking, most filmmakers, including myself, don't know the first thing about audio, let alone have a slant for it.
I think what I'm bringing to the discussion is practicality. I've nothing whatsoever to do with what is ideal. So I'm definitely bringing the bias of my experience. Sure.
I hope I was able to explain why I felt the need to advise against it despite my poor grasp of the technique. Because I think it's particularly difficult to achieve for most filmmakers. What if someone is interested, you say? Then they should do it. I advised based on my idea of the OPs reasons for the question. He's trying to figure out if he should do production audio or ADR. I'm telling him that ADR is a lot more involved than it might appear.
I'm really not advising against anything. It's more like I'm saying that it's easier and cheaper for most people to get the sound you want, during production. If you're an audio expert, or have a knack for ADR, surely it's the wrong advice. But I'm also assuming that most filmmakers are not audio experts. So I'm saying, if one has to choose, then I'd choose production audio.
I actually do not have a good camera, or equipment that is in any way special. For my last film, I did spend some money on a couple of decent lenses, but in terms of equipment, I just don't have the money to buy the latest and greatest. I try to spend my money wisely.
I also spent the last three months learning audio post for my film. So I have some idea of what I'm talking about. Am I an expert? By no means. But do I think I've got the sound at a level for a proper online viewing? Yeah (still cleaning it up right now). It's not perfect by any means. But I think it works. Some people will still find it not up to standard, because it's not.
But I'm only giving advice that I think is practical for most filmmakers. If there is an audio expert filmmaker, they shouldn't listen to me.
My premise is that the OP is not an expert at audio, but is having difficulty figuring out how to get proper audio for his films. My assumption is that he's not going to become an expert at ADR tomorrow, despite the fact that he may actually discover a knack for it, which I clearly don't.
Also, the main outlook I bring to no/lo budget filmmaking is that I'm not going to get anything perfect. Whether it's sound design or whether it's lighting or acting or set design. What I do is try to get over a visual threshold, where the average viewer, however sophisticated some may claim modern viewers are, get fooled into believing the visuals belong in a studio production (I'm not saying that I've achieved that. I'm saying that's my goal.). However, I find that to fool the audience when it comes to audio, is extremely difficult. They invariably tune out of the story when the audio is bad. They don't tune out because the color correction has the "wrong" skin tone, whatever that is (every movie I watch seems to define it's own skin tone and nobody seems to complain), or because the use of an optical flare is straining to the eyes.
So where I'm coming from, doing audio, believably, is difficult, and quite beyond my skill level.
There's a lot of things involved here. Just think about what you're saying. In order to ADR cheaply & believably, you have to:
1. Have decent recording equipment
2. Have a semi sound proof recording environment with foam and everything.
3. You have to have actors back. Feed your actors again. Maybe even pay them.
4. They have to be in the right state of tension as in the movie. Or you have to do it over and over again until achieved
5. You have to know how to do audio post properly. You have to know what "Ambience Matching" is, or your audio is going to sound out of place. You have to develop some sort of acceptable skill level at audio post and have decent audio post software to be able to do all of this.
You're talking production house level involvement.
All I did was shoot two people walking at about 100 meters away, where they're specks on the screen (I laved them, but the rustling sound was horrible), so I thought I could just re-record them later, and though the viewer may never know, I feel that the soul in the audio in the lav, is missing in the ADR session, even though you can barely see them on screen. The difference in audio is nuanced, but I can feel it. (I'm trying to clean up the lav audio as I write this) Maybe Derek can develop these skills overnight. Maybe. But I'm advising him on the basis that it may in fact be a lot easier just to get the production sound. Maybe it's bad advice for someone with your skillset. But for most filmmakers starting out, I'd say it's practical advice.
I've never advocated anybody to get a killer camera. Although I will say, that I'm changing my opinion on that. I think a better camera makes it easier to light cheaply.
That's a nice story, for a debate online. You may be among a handful of independent filmmakers with a 'slant' towards audio or sound design. But practically speaking, most filmmakers, including myself, don't know the first thing about audio, let alone have a slant for it.
I think what I'm bringing to the discussion is practicality. I've nothing whatsoever to do with what is ideal. So I'm definitely bringing the bias of my experience. Sure.
I hope I was able to explain why I felt the need to advise against it despite my poor grasp of the technique. Because I think it's particularly difficult to achieve for most filmmakers. What if someone is interested, you say? Then they should do it. I advised based on my idea of the OPs reasons for the question. He's trying to figure out if he should do production audio or ADR. I'm telling him that ADR is a lot more involved than it might appear.
I'm really not advising against anything. It's more like I'm saying that it's easier and cheaper for most people to get the sound you want, during production. If you're an audio expert, or have a knack for ADR, surely it's the wrong advice. But I'm also assuming that most filmmakers are not audio experts. So I'm saying, if one has to choose, then I'd choose production audio.
I'm with you on this more than you think man. ADR comes easy to me and I like it, it, and sound in general, is where I've spent a lot of time and some hard earned paychecks. You probably have way better gear and talent than me in other areas. I just wouldn't want to discourage anyone even at an indie level from slamming a mic into their NLE and recording some ADR and then spending 100 man hours on their own dime tweaking it in post anymore than I would want to discourage someone from attempting decent lighting or color grading.
Well my ADR sessions will cost you far less than a full sound crew at scale, so keep that in mind if you get into a pinch
I may have oversold my "studio". A lot of people have computers and microphones nowadays, it could be much cheaper for them to give it a shot if they had or even desired to. And of those who may have a slightly better post-sound set-up and passion, it may be cheaper for them to get a DoP if they don't have a good eye or a good camera like you... this is to say a filmmaker who leans towards sound with his resources still has a shot at telling a good story - its just moving money and personal preference filmmaking aspects from one bucket to the other.
I actually do not have a good camera, or equipment that is in any way special. For my last film, I did spend some money on a couple of decent lenses, but in terms of equipment, I just don't have the money to buy the latest and greatest. I try to spend my money wisely.
I also spent the last three months learning audio post for my film. So I have some idea of what I'm talking about. Am I an expert? By no means. But do I think I've got the sound at a level for a proper online viewing? Yeah (still cleaning it up right now). It's not perfect by any means. But I think it works. Some people will still find it not up to standard, because it's not.
But I'm only giving advice that I think is practical for most filmmakers. If there is an audio expert filmmaker, they shouldn't listen to me.
Last edited:
some good discussion going on....yes, I'm far from an expert at Audio, or anything for that matter...I'm a newbie, this was my first project. I wasn't even aware until we started shooting that its sometimes 'dubbed'...My editor / cameraman / sound guy, did record the close shoots in the house we used, but for everything else, it was dubbed....such as a restaurant scene...Made me very curious as what was the best options for further projects....although, its incredibly time consuming
The no/nano budget or amateur sector is not "every level of the industry", it's arguably not even in the film industry! I don't doubt there are some amateur filmmakers who don't know the difference between dubbing and ADR but that doesn't mean that other, serious amateurs and the professions don't! Put less politely, I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about!
Despite what you've stated, the precise meaning of "dubbing" is indeed confusing, as you have unwittingly proven! You are correct that "dubbing" is an interchangeable term, however you are incorrect about what it is interchangeable with! "Dubbing" really means "to add" (or "to sum") and is therefore interchangeable with the term "mixing" but it is NOT interchangeable with the term ADR. For example, the role of the Re-recording Mixer is traditionally called the Dubbing Engineer in the UK. While in the USA, the place where Re-recording Mixers work, the theatrical sized mix room, is called a "Dub Stage". Outside of the film industry, the public use the term "Dubbed" exclusively to mean a film which has had the dialogue re-recorded in a different language and for many decades this usage of the term is also prevalent inside the industry, although expanded a little as I explained previously. While the term "dubbing" can be a little vague, the term ADR is extremely specific.
All post-prod dialogue recording, regardless of whether it's dubbed or ADR dialogue, is recorded on an "ADR stage" and therefore often referred to as an "ADR Session", even if there is no actual ADR recording occurring. For example, the recording of Walla occurs on an ADR Stage during an ADR session, even though walla is not ADR. If you book a Dub Stage to record your ADR (or dubbed dialogue) you're going to be in for a very nasty surprise!
You have described how to record dubbed dialogue, not specifically ADR. With ADR recording the actor is primarily focused on re-creating the production sound dialogue. Although not common, ADR is sometimes recorded just with reference to the production sound. IE., the actor is not played the visuals during ADR recording. The editing of ADR also differs from the editing of dubbed dialogue. Software is used to compare the waveform of the ADR with the waveform of the production dialogue and "automatically" adjusts the ADR to precisely match the timing of the production dialogue waveforms. Obviously, this automated part of the ADR editing process is not possible without original production sound recordings!
Rudimentary reading skills and simple logic dictates that one can't do Automatic Dialogue Replacement (ADR) if there is no dialogue to replace!
The term MOS is commonly attributed to a German immigrant director in the 1920's instructing that the scene should be shot "mit out sprechen". Although the exact origins are uncertain, MOS today and for many decades does mean without [production] dialogue recording!
No, it's because of QC requirements for M&E mixes and current commercial audience expectations of sound quality, neither of which you appear to understand/appreciate.
No, as far as I'm aware dubbing has never been a creative decision in the filmmaking industry, it's always been a technical or budgetary decision. It could of course theoretically be a creative decision and I'm sure there probably are some examples in the art house or experimental corners of the film world.
You seem to be bizarrely stuck in an obscure but once successful European film sub-genre which effectively died out about 40 years ago. Though never desirable, Dubbing was and still is standard practice though much of mainland Europe for all non-domestic language films and therefore filming MOS and dubbing was far more acceptable to it's target European audiences and a more viable choice for the low budget European "Spaghetti" and "Euro-Western" filmmakers of the 1960's and early 70's. Unfortunately, you seem to be allowing your passion for that genre/era to be clouding your judgement and the advice/information you are providing appears to be more propaganda than factual!
There's nothing ironical or even factual about this statement, unless by "indie" you are only referring to just some of the amateur no budget indie films?
Do-able, yes. Do-able to a standard acceptable to a general audience, no! Except for a few experimental filmmakers, most amateur and no budget indie filmmakers aspire towards modern professional standards and general public expectations. As a general rule, advocating dubbed dialogue will take them further away from those aspirations rather than towards them!
Not unless you said "Traditionally" and the echo changed it to sound like "today's no/nano budget productions sometimes ..."!
"Easier and cheaper" to get cleaner recordings? Possibly, depending on the time/cost of your actors and ADR facilities/personnel. "Higher quality", hmm, No. A clean recording is only one of a number of factors which determines "quality" and it's often not even the most important factor.
Many times less than the cost of: A professional ADR team, ADR Stage, paying the director and actors time/travel/expenses and paying the extra time/expenses of the Dub stage to integrate it. This is of course one of the reasons why budgeted films (indie or studio) always use a professional production sound team, it's not only better artistically but it's also cheaper! I'm not advocating that no budget filmmakers should wait until they can afford a pro production sound team before they make any films. I'm suggesting they work towards standard filmmaking practice with what they've got.
G
OH! Is that what the "Automatic" part refers to? I'm probably stupid for never having researched the reasoning for the term before. But I've always been confused as to what exactly is "automatic" about this process when it requires human effort and time to re-record the dialogue again.
Now it makes sense.
Different strokes for different folks...
In the UK they say "automatic." Here on the East Coast of the USA we call it Automated Dialog Replacement - there's nothing "automatic" about it, but we do "automate" the process
. On the West Coast many still call it Looping, and it is technically true as we do "loop" the dialog on our computers. BTW, groups of people who do the walla and one-off lines are called "Loop Groups."
BTW, the thing about dubbing can be very confusing. Films are dubbed in foreign languages, the foreign language dialog is recorded in a dubbing session at an ADR/Looping facility. The original film and the foreign language dialog version will be mixed/rerecorded on a dub stage. Pre-mixes of the dialog stem are sometimes called pre-dubs. And, as with ADR, geographic location can vary how a term is used.
Derek -
Guanto has his own point of view, but it's not shared by old-timers like APE (Audio Post Expert) and myself; both of us can remember editing analog tape, the advent of MIDI, SMPTE time sync, "black burst" boxes to sync Pro Tools to BETA video tape machines and the tumultuous transition to entirely digital. Back in those days you served a real internship where you actually learned, and, if you were talented, could work your way up. I came in sort of sideways; I was a working musician, both stage and studio. I spent A LOT of time kibitzing with the engineers and producers; that's where I learned the technical side of the studio. After a few years they started calling me to "fly second chair" during mix-down sessions - back when you manually changed every volume level, every EQ, every pan, every effect, etc., etc., manually you needed as second set of hands on the mixing console, and you had to rehearse a mix. (Hey APE, remember masking tape between the faders with levels in grease pencil?) With the advent of MIDI and "affordable" multi-track recorders I eventually started a small home studio to do arrangements and demos, which kept expanding into the two rooms I have today. When I retired from performing (arthritis
) I got into music engineering and migrated to audio post about 14 years ago. Anyway, with over 40 years in the entertainment biz, I'll stick to my old school terminology and "proper" technical designations.
It has been my experience over my years in audio post that a majority of directors prefer production dialog, and rerecording mixers tend to favor the boomed mike - provided, of course, that it was well recorded.. Production dialog has the exact same emotions that you are seeing on the screen. When I'm wearing my dialog editor hat and I am replacing a piece of dialog - a syllable, a word or a phrase - I work very hard sorting through the alternate dialog (from takes that didn't make the cut) to find the right syllable, word or phrase so I do not distort the flow and tonal quality. I've also found that most indie actors have an extremely hard time with ADR, and the resulting scenes are quite flat, more often than not.
Just for fun... One of the directors beloved by you up-and-coming indie directors is Quentin Tarantino. He is a fanatic about using production sound. In fact, during the shooting of "Inglourious Basterds," he would change lighting, change camera angles, adjust wardrobe, move noisy equipment, whatever it took, to assist the production sound team, so that he could use nothing but production sound in the final mix. Some ADR was recorded, but none was used in the final mix. This was, obviously, a big deal in the sound-for-picture community, and there were quite a few interviews with all of the key sound folks involved. The audio post team raved about the quality of the production sound, while Mark Ulano, the PSM, just loved working with QT. Complex mic schemes were used to capture as much crowd sounds on-set as possible, and the sound team would roll almost continuously to capture lots of on-set sounds, ambience and even "walla" from the cast and crew. Quite a bit of this material (in relative terms) made it into the final mix.
Now, down in the weeds here at the low/no/mini/micro budget level it's bit different. Capturing quality production sound is low on the list for many - make that most - low/no/mini/micro budget types. So I spend a lot of my time doing doing surgery rather than being creative and enhancing the emotions of the scene.
As I quoted in a previous post:
"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."
So if you want to make this your profession start paying more attention to sound. If ADR is the only thing that you can accomplish, then at least learn to handle it well. There are no rules except please your audience.
In the UK they say "automatic." Here on the East Coast of the USA we call it Automated Dialog Replacement - there's nothing "automatic" about it, but we do "automate" the process
. On the West Coast many still call it Looping, and it is technically true as we do "loop" the dialog on our computers. BTW, groups of people who do the walla and one-off lines are called "Loop Groups."BTW, the thing about dubbing can be very confusing. Films are dubbed in foreign languages, the foreign language dialog is recorded in a dubbing session at an ADR/Looping facility. The original film and the foreign language dialog version will be mixed/rerecorded on a dub stage. Pre-mixes of the dialog stem are sometimes called pre-dubs. And, as with ADR, geographic location can vary how a term is used.
Derek -
Guanto has his own point of view, but it's not shared by old-timers like APE (Audio Post Expert) and myself; both of us can remember editing analog tape, the advent of MIDI, SMPTE time sync, "black burst" boxes to sync Pro Tools to BETA video tape machines and the tumultuous transition to entirely digital. Back in those days you served a real internship where you actually learned, and, if you were talented, could work your way up. I came in sort of sideways; I was a working musician, both stage and studio. I spent A LOT of time kibitzing with the engineers and producers; that's where I learned the technical side of the studio. After a few years they started calling me to "fly second chair" during mix-down sessions - back when you manually changed every volume level, every EQ, every pan, every effect, etc., etc., manually you needed as second set of hands on the mixing console, and you had to rehearse a mix. (Hey APE, remember masking tape between the faders with levels in grease pencil?) With the advent of MIDI and "affordable" multi-track recorders I eventually started a small home studio to do arrangements and demos, which kept expanding into the two rooms I have today. When I retired from performing (arthritis
) I got into music engineering and migrated to audio post about 14 years ago. Anyway, with over 40 years in the entertainment biz, I'll stick to my old school terminology and "proper" technical designations. It has been my experience over my years in audio post that a majority of directors prefer production dialog, and rerecording mixers tend to favor the boomed mike - provided, of course, that it was well recorded.. Production dialog has the exact same emotions that you are seeing on the screen. When I'm wearing my dialog editor hat and I am replacing a piece of dialog - a syllable, a word or a phrase - I work very hard sorting through the alternate dialog (from takes that didn't make the cut) to find the right syllable, word or phrase so I do not distort the flow and tonal quality. I've also found that most indie actors have an extremely hard time with ADR, and the resulting scenes are quite flat, more often than not.
Just for fun... One of the directors beloved by you up-and-coming indie directors is Quentin Tarantino. He is a fanatic about using production sound. In fact, during the shooting of "Inglourious Basterds," he would change lighting, change camera angles, adjust wardrobe, move noisy equipment, whatever it took, to assist the production sound team, so that he could use nothing but production sound in the final mix. Some ADR was recorded, but none was used in the final mix. This was, obviously, a big deal in the sound-for-picture community, and there were quite a few interviews with all of the key sound folks involved. The audio post team raved about the quality of the production sound, while Mark Ulano, the PSM, just loved working with QT. Complex mic schemes were used to capture as much crowd sounds on-set as possible, and the sound team would roll almost continuously to capture lots of on-set sounds, ambience and even "walla" from the cast and crew. Quite a bit of this material (in relative terms) made it into the final mix.
Now, down in the weeds here at the low/no/mini/micro budget level it's bit different. Capturing quality production sound is low on the list for many - make that most - low/no/mini/micro budget types. So I spend a lot of my time doing doing surgery rather than being creative and enhancing the emotions of the scene.
As I quoted in a previous post:
"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."
So if you want to make this your profession start paying more attention to sound. If ADR is the only thing that you can accomplish, then at least learn to handle it well. There are no rules except please your audience.
Last edited: