Is it normal for the DP to get to call this during shoots?

I went to shoot a movie, for some people, by recording sound on set, and it was by far the highest budgeted movie I have ever worked on. I was quite impressed. However, I felt the director and producer may not have put a lot of thought into the audio compared to the video.

I never got any feedback on what the noise was like on the locations and was not able to visit any of them beforehand. The reason being, is that I had to travel to another city to shoot and the locations were still being decided before then. So when I got there, they were kind of noisy and not the best, since we could not turn off the heating, or control a lot of sound made by the public.

But there was one thing that really bothered me, but maybe I am wrong, and this is normal on a set. I couldn't put the boom mic where it was required to go because the DP called the shots on where it was to be for each shot. He did not want it to get in the way of his lighting, so he would tell me where to put and even have it drawn on the storyboards. My guess is that it's not normal for the DP to have so much free reign given by the director.
 
In that situation probably. Depends. If they know each other well the director will trust the DP to know this. Basically sound gets second seat so they have to fit into the scene without affecting the scene, ie casting shadows, being seen etc.

As a general rule, I don't like DP stepping on directors, but some strong willed DP's will step on new directors. Should not happen unless it is absolutely necessary.
 
A good boom op would not need to be told their mic was causing shadows. A good director would make sure the production sound people are given the opportunity to capture good sound wherever possible. In this case, during storyboard creation.

If they don't, it will come back and bite them in the a$$, which is the only way some directors seem capable of learning!

G
 
A good boom op would not need to be told their mic was causing shadows. A good director would make sure the production sound people are given the opportunity to capture good sound wherever possible. In this case, during storyboard creation.

This.

If the occasional time arises when shadows do pop up, usually it's either a matter of simply letting the boom op know, or in some cases working with them to find them an appropriate spot to boom from (or perhaps an apple box to stand on to be able to get appropriate height).

I've never seen a professional boom op get in the way of any lighting.

I can recall one situation where an inexperienced boom op asked the professional DP I was AC'ing for if he could 'move [his] light,' so that the boom op could get in to a certain position.

This DP just kinda looked at him funny and then said 'no.'

I relayed the frame to the boom op and found him a spot that he could be. As an AC, you can often be working with boom ops to let them know what their 'edge' is (edge of frame).
 
Okay thanks. Why does sound get second beat though? I people's opinions I have asked they said that bad sound can actually be more distracting than bad lighting so I thought sound should get equal beat.

As far as booming where shadows could not be caught, a lot of the shots I was not able to do that, because the DP lit a lot of scenes in such a way that the boom could be seen from every which way it seemed. The only way most of the time was to boom four feet high to avoid shadows, but that's too high since a mic should be two feet from the base of the throat, ideally, or so I've been told. Plus it seems that way from my experience.

As for booming underneath, that only worked in scenes when the actors were still, but this production had a lot of blocking and moving around for the actors, where their hands and arms would often get in the way, unless of course I move the mic beyond two feet. I still got all the sound, just more like 3-6 feet away, for most of it, rather than the ideal two feet.
 
It also depends on coverage.

If the boom op simply can't get in close enough when we're doing a wide, he'll often ask if we're getting CUs. As long as he gets decent sound in the CUs (and there shouldn't be any reason why he/she shouldn't) then that's more important than getting average sound in the wides (as it will always/generally be average sound as you just simply can't get in close enough).

Of course, any of the audio guys feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but most sound guys I work with don't really raise an issue unless the only coverage we're getting of a scene is a wide, and they can't get in close enough.

The other thing is, in 99% of the projects I work on, the actors are always lav'd so that option is always there, no matter the shot. Also, the Director, Script Supervisor will always wear wireless headphones so they know how the sound is for each take. Others may sometimes wear them as well depending on who needs to (i.e. AD, DP for movement cues on lines etc.)
 
Why does sound get second beat though?
The only way most of the time was to boom four feet high to avoid shadows, but that's too high since a mic should be two feet from the base of the throat, ideally, or so I've been told.

As Jax said, it's standard practice to use lavs. Additionally, you can mic from four feet away but you need a quiet (high quality) mic with a tighter pickup pattern, a good quality (quiet) mic pre-amp, a quiet set/location (treated with sound blankets) and a more skilled/accurate boom operator. No/Nano budget productions often can't or won't spend the money hiring the necessary production sound equipment, which is fine but then they need to work around that lack of resources and design their shots/lighting accordingly. It's unfortunately common not to do either though, which is a sure sign of incompetence and inexperience!

G
 
Harmonica -

We discussed this a long time ago, Grasshopper. You almost never get ideal at any level of filmmaking, and in the indie world you're lucky indeed to even get adequate. You adapt and do the best that you can under the given circumstances, you let the director (or 1st AD or whomever) know the sound issues, make recommendations to ameliorate them, and make notes of the discussion in your sound report. Other than doing the best that your skills and equipment allow in the situation, having given proper notifications, and having done your bookkeeping, you deal with it - that's the gig.


We all have to deal with that kind of crap; I still do.

Here's a just for fun...

I have two semi-regular clients who come in for music sessions. It's funny that after all these years they've never met until recently.

"Phil" is a pretty talented guy, and is able to communicate what he wants quite well. He's fun to work with. A few weeks ago, "Bill" - who is not a talented guy and does not communicate well - shows up early while Phil and I are still in session. Bill is allowed to sit on the couch while Phil and I finish up. When I returned from walking Phil out to his car Bill wants to know why his songs "don't sound like that."

Here's a "Bill Session" - He (or they; sometimes his son comes) gets settled and I ask what kind of beat he wants. It's almost always the same. So I put that together and then he sings the melody, which I have to figure out. This takes about an hour, because Bill has terrible pitch. Then I have to figure out a chord structure for the melody and a quick MIDI arrangement. Then Bill sings it (badly). I comp together a performance as best I can, Autotune the crap out of it and do a quick mix. Five hours, done.

Phil, however, books five six hour sessions spread over two weeks or less. He'll bring three or four guitars, a couple of amps, a case of "toys," whatever MIDI he's already programmed, examples of sounds he wants. We'll demo the song out in 45 minutes or so, and then spend the rest of the session programming the drums, and/or recording hand percussion. The next session will focus on the rest of the "band" - recording bass & guitars, adding keyboards, etc. plus "sweeting," strings, synths whatever. At the next session we'll work on vocals and whatever else strikes Phils fancy. The next session we "tweak" the hell out of it and do the mix prep. We mix at the last session.


And Bill wants to know why his songs "don't sound like that."

head_banging.gif~c200
 
Last edited:
Every time I have seen boom operators ask to readjust lighting or character placement in order to get proper boom placement for better sound recording, their requests have always been rejected.
 
Yes my recommendations were all rejected. I was also never shown the storyboards before shooting when I asked. I did not know that the mic placement was already set it stone, without any consultation. As far as lavs go, when I applied for the job, I told them I only had two mics, and they said that was fine, so I thought maybe they had a lot of closes ups in mind, but it was mostly wides and OTS shots. The OTS ones were not too bad for some, but for others, their was always a shadow, no matter where you went. And there were certain areas I was not allowed to boom from cause it interfered with the rest of the crew.

If there was a shadow from those areas, I was never able to find out.
 
Last edited:
Even though sound definitely is just as important as the visuals, the image definitely seems to reign supreme as far as what's given priority while shooting on set. It could be because theoretically, the image is what makes film film.

That being said, I think a film will best benefit when everyone can respect each other and work together. So rather than just saying "no," he should of at least gave it some thought. Not that he should at all compromise the lighting, but to see if he could accomplish the same lighting while allowing you to to get the needed sound.
 
the image is what makes film film.

No, film is two interactive parts - audio and visual. Try watching a film with the sound turned off; pretty boring!

The "great" directors have all leaned very heavily on sound. Tarantino, a favorite of many of you indie types, is an absolute fanatic about both production sound and audio post, as is David Lynch.

"If you can't hear the dialog you may as well not make the movie."

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.
 
That's really good advice. They say silent films are the birth of cinema, but I think talkies, have also perhaps have had a lot of influence from radio plays, perhaps just as much influence. But I could be wrong.
 
Even though sound definitely is just as important as the visuals, the image definitely seems to reign supreme as far as what's given priority while shooting on set. It could be because theoretically, the image is what makes film film.

In my experience, it seems like most are either ascended DPs or writers and are usually very visually oriented people (which seems obvious). Story-boarding, costuming, location scouting, framing, lighting... so many visual oriented things that go on on-set. Audio gets outnumbered and outvoted (trying asking for the money to hire a Schoeps CMIT5 the next time the production team talks about renting a Red or Alexia).

However, Alcove is right: bad visuals are less offensive to audiences than bad sound. You'll hear film teachers and directors say that too, but the follow-through often leaves a lot to be desired.
 
Okay thanks. I care about sound more and I would rather rent a good PSM with good equipment than spend the money on a Red.

I saw a rough cut of the finished product and the cinematography, sets and costume design were really impressive, but the audio is disappointing. I aimed the mic accurately, but it sounds too far away, and the post mixing could be better.
 
No, film is two interactive parts - audio and visual. Try watching a film with the sound turned off; pretty boring!

The "great" directors have all leaned very heavily on sound. Tarantino, a favorite of many of you indie types, is an absolute fanatic about both production sound and audio post, as is David Lynch.

"If you can't hear the dialog you may as well not make the movie."


There are a lot of excellent silent films.

Can you make a film without visuals and just sound? No, it's now an audio book or narration ;)
Can you make a film without sound and just visuals? Yes, it's now a silent film

Having said that, they are both extremely important to modern day film making.
 
There are a lot of excellent silent films.

No there aren't! There WERE a lot of excellent silent films but not anymore.

Can you make a film without visuals and just sound? No, it's now an audio book or narration ;)

Or a radio play. All of which can be viable commercial products BTW.

Can you make a film without sound and just visuals? Yes, it's now a silent film

No, it's now CC TV! Which isn't a viable commercial product BTW.

1. Many decades ago films made without sync sound were "films" and films with sync sound were "talkies" but as talkies made films extinct, talkies became the "films" and what had been called "films" had to be called something else, and therefore the term "silent film" was coined. A "film" and a "silent film" are two different things, so no, you can't make a film with just visuals.
2. The common term "Silent film" is a misnomer because films haven't been experienced "without sound" by audiences since the very earliest years of film, well over 100 years ago.
3. Even if, for some reason, someone wants to make a silent film today, it can't actually be silent (without any sound).

... the image definitely seems to reign supreme as far as what's given priority while shooting on set. It could be because theoretically, the image is what makes film film.

No, I don't think that's it. The image is certainly an essential ingredient of what makes film film but it's still only one ingredient. The image reigns supreme on set because "on set" represents the only opportunity to create/capture the image, whereas there are other potential opportunities to create/capture the sound. I don't think anyone here or any serious PSM would dispute that generally the image should have priority during filming/production. We're just saying that having priority can't mean 100% image and 0% sound.

As today's meaning of the term "film" implicitly includes sound, if one wants to make a good film then by definition it must have good sound (as well as good image, etc). The problem is a practical one for low budget filmmakers because although achieving "good" becomes more difficult for all the film crafts as the budget gets smaller, it gets disproportionately more difficult to achieve good sound. Rather than compensating for this by increasing the relative proportion of budget and/or consideration spent on the sound, many amateur filmmakers go the other way and simply accept poor sound and at least try to get the best image they can. The lower tier (and even some of the mid tier) film festivals exist to cater to hobbyist/amateur filmmakers and are therefore very tolerant of poor sound. This of course re-enforces the mistaken view that a film can be good without good sound. The commercial/professional industry isn't tolerant of poor sound though (because the general paying public isn't!) and neither are the high tier festivals (as they don't exist to cater specifically to amateur filmmakers) and this is one of the main reasons why so many amateurs struggle to cross this apparent boundary.

G
 
Back
Top