Is it worth getting lavs to look more professional?

[harmonica44]

I was told by a PSM that I boomed for before, that I was really good at it and should keep doing that in order to get on sets. I have tried a few times, but every call for film projects so far (usually documentaries are being shot here), they always say in the adds, that they want to someone who uses lavs.

I have always been happy with my boom mics for own projects, and never desired to get lavs, at least not at this time, or until I find a use for them. But every add I apply for says they want lavs, and will tell me they are not interested in boom mics.

One guy said okay we will give the boom a shot. So I start booming from person to person, but the director got distracted by it, and told me he cannot work with that boom swinging all over the place, and that it's too risky, that I could miss something. He then got lavs for the rest of the project later on.

So since everyone so far prefers lavs it seems, should I get that to look more professional, or to look like I am ready to go with what they need, should such opportunities, to volunteer for sets, arise?

Is it worth it? Thanks.

 

[Alcove Audio]

... the director got distracted by it, and told me he cannot work with that boom swinging all over the place, and that it's too risky, that I could miss something.

Then he's a frigging moron. If something is "missed" - a solid boom-op very rarely misses something since s/he's been rehearsing since blocking and has the script memorized - that's what dialog editing is for. And as for "distractions" he must shoot everything stationary on a tripod, because dollies, etc. would definitely be distracting, right? I'm sure that pulling focus is much too risky as well, you might over or under shoot the focus.

Sure, buy lavs and the wireless systems that go with them. Preferably you get Lectrosonics, but Sennheiser G3 will do okay. With the Sennheiser you'll need to replace the lavs, Lectrosonics do not come with lavs. CountryMan B3 & B6, Tram TR-50 and Sanken COS-11 are fairly standard. You'll need at least three (3) sets of you're not booming.

Seriously, if the client wants lavs, rent them and charge it back to the client with a little extra thrown in for yourself.

http://www.trewaudio.com/rentals/vancouver-wireless-systems/

And you had better upgrade your recorder - four (4) tracks minimum - and your mixer. After all, you don't want to be mixing on the fly, you might miss something......

 

[AudioPostExpert]

... I start booming from person to person, but the director got distracted by it, and told me he cannot work with that boom swinging all over the place, and that it's too risky, that I could miss something.

The director got distracted by the filmmaking process, that's impressive!! Alcove's description of "frigging moron" sums it up quite nicely, although personally I would have been less polite about it!

...every call for film projects so far (usually documentaries are being shot here), they always say in the adds, that they want to someone who uses lavs.

Documentaries often use lavs only to record sound. This is because the sync dialogue they are normally dealing with is straight forward interviews in a neutral environment, where the interviewer is cut, so there's no interplay. In drama productions or documentaries with dramatised segments, it's usual professional practise to record both boom and lav. The majority of the time in audio post, the boom recording will be chosen over the lav because it almost always provides better/more natural audio perspective. However, the lav recordings provide invaluable options/alternatives and in a number of filming situations it's the only viable technique of recording usable dialogue.

So since everyone so far prefers lavs it seems, should I get that to look more professional, or to look like I am ready to go with what they need, should such opportunities, to volunteer for sets, arise? Is it worth it? Thanks.

Only in certain situations do some filmmakers "prefer lavs", in the vast majority of filmmaking situations everyone actually prefers the use of boom mics! However, if you want to be (or appear to be) professional then "yes", you should definitely have a set of lavs and wherever possible you should record both lavs and boom. As Alcove stated though, it's not a cheap proposition. Not only are decent lavs, capsules and transmitters/receivers all relatively expensive, but you will also need a minimum 4 track recorder and a mixer, and of course with so much more to setup and monitor, you'll need a boom op and a PSM as it's too much for one person to do all at once.

This two person location sound team, plus the charges you will have to apply to recoup the cost of the equipment, will almost certainly price you out of the no/lo budget sector, as the vast majority of filmmakers in that budget sector don't really care about achieving commercial standards/expectations and therefore don't really want professionals. In other words, looking or being "professional" is a two edged sword as far as the lo/no budget sector is concerned.

G

 

[Nikola Damov]

How are you coming up with all these stories?

 

[DeJager]

I always enjoy reading your posts because they are always about some crazy dysfunctional set.

Some situations call for lavs, some don't. We use a mixture; however on most of the sets (feature narrative work) it's usually boom.

 

[Sweetie]

Is it worth getting lavs to look more professional?

The best way to look more professional is to be more professional.

Do you need them to look more professional? No. Will it help you get on more volunteer sets? Yes. Most beginning filmmakers are morons when it comes to audio.

I have heard of some directors refusing to allow booms on set, though I've never encountered this.

I agree with Alcove. You'll probably want 3 sets (or more over time), though I'd say you'd still want this number even if you are booming.

 

[Alcove Audio]

Just to give you an idea of what you are getting into:

Three (3) sets Sennheiser G3 wireless ($650) = $1,950

Three (3) Sanken COS-11D lavs ($470) = $1,410

Sound Devices 552 Portable 5-Channel Mixer/Recorder= $3,300

Accessories = $700

TOTAL - $7,360

If you decide to go with the Lectrosonics 100 series wireless they are about $1,250 each - $3,750

If you decide to go with the Lectrosonics 400 series wireless they are about $2,500 each - $7,500

You'll have to order the lavs wired for the specific wireless system you are using.



You can rent the Lectrosonics 400 series with a COS-11 for $75/day or $300/week or $900 month from TrewAudio (they ship anywhere in North America). Professional production sound folks who own their own gear charge a rental fee about 50% to 75% of what the rental houses charge.

 

[harmonica44]

Well even though a lot of sets have booms, here where I live, four people so far, asked for lavs for their documentaries and they wouldn't consider the boom as an option, accept for the one guy, but then changed his mind, when it was distracting on set. I know, he should get use to a crew having to move around while shooting.

The wireless option is more expensive, as I was looking at wire lavs for $400 each before. I was going to plut them into my sound recorder, but I thought that the receiver was part of the $400 lav package. Did not know it was a separate item.

I think that I will try to get on sets a different way, but they are always advertising for the audio and the video related positions are filled so far before the added is posted. Usually the producer/director is doing the shooting him/herself.

So I don't think it's worth it, me getting lavs unless I really want to be a PSM. But I just want to get on sets to get experience, and am more interested in acting/directing. I will try to get on these documentaries a different way and hopefully can find one where they will have no problem going for the boom only. I don't really see the big deal with using booms instead of lavs, especially if it's just interviews, but these four do so far.

 

[Sweetie]

If you're interested in acting/directing, why are you trying to get on documentary sets?

Is this the sort of experience you think will propel your career or are you trolling again?

 

[harmonica44]

Because I keep being told to get on sets for experience, and everyone is making documentaries. So I am getting on the sets that I can to gain what I can and also hopefully build connections.

 

[sfoster]

boom IS distracting for documentaries.
the cast are not actors

 

[Alcove Audio]

boom IS distracting for documentaries. the cast are not actors

No, booming is not a distraction, it is a part of the filmmaking process, whether it is narrative or documentary.

When doing documentaries the boomed mic is the safety for the lav(s), rather than the other way around in narrative projects where the lav is the safety for the boomed mic. Besides, the boom would be almost completely stationary during a documentary interview (the mic might even be on a stand), so should not be any more of a distraction to a non-actor than a camera, or lighting, or the crew or the interviewer.

I'm going to play the crusty old fart for a moment...

You need to have a historical perspective. First off, you do realize that using wireless mics as a standard practice is only about 35 years old, and, up until about 25 years ago, they were fairly large and clunky (about the size of a salt shaker in the 60's, then a thimble in the 70's), so much so that the interviewed (average) person felt uncomfortable, so a boomed mic was the only choice. Reliable wireless at the consumer/prosumer level is only about 10 to 15 years old.

Also, are you aware that most interview shows - Letterman, the Tonight Show, et. al. - still use boomed mics on the set, and that the boomed mic is what is used for the broadcast audio for a large portion of the show.

Just for fun, if you want to get technical about it, old-time telephone operators used the first lavalier mics:

This is a lav from the 60's/early 70's"

 

[sfoster]

I was not aware that the talk shows use a boom, no.
One of my film making books has claimed the booming can be distracting for documentaries. And the doc that I was in used wireless lavs so putting those two together I figure that yeah maybe it's a distraction for people in docs.

But.. since they didn't boom me when I was in the doc I can't really say first hand if i was distracted by it or not.
a lot of what we did wasn't just a staged interview in one spot though, they followed me out on location

 

[harmonica44]

Well I had to boom four people in the documentary which required swinging it around more. Perhaps with that many people, it's a bad idea. But they still want lavs on documentaries, even if it's just one person being interviewed. I don't get the big deal, I was watching the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, and I noticed how some of the interviews sounded like they were record with lavs, and others were recorded with boom mics, or mics with different pick up patterns.

I don't mind the sound of a boom mic at all and figure that the different sound compared to a lav is fine, and do not see what is so special about this lav sound. But that's just me and I my taste is sound.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Because I keep being told to get on sets for experience, and everyone is making documentaries.

Except for docu-dramas or docu-drama segments, documentaries rarely if ever use "sets", they just use locations. So technically you're not going to get any "on set" experience working on documentaries. The point I'm making and the point Sweetie was trying to make, is that you seem to be thinking that filmmaking is filmmaking but that's not the case! Making documentaries and making narrative dramatic films are different types of filmmaking with different priorities, different demands and requirements and which employ different techniques and different workflows. In other words, what experience of dramatic film production do you think you are gaining by working on documentaries?

... I noticed how some of the interviews sounded like they were record with lavs, and others were recorded with boom mics, or mics with different pick up patterns. I don't mind the sound of a boom mic at all and figure that the different sound compared to a lav is fine, and do not see what is so special about this lav sound. But that's just me and I my taste is sound.

You are failing to understand what I've already told you and again failing to understand the fundamental difference between documentary and dramatic film production! In documentaries, the audience is watching an historical "document", presented using a mixture of: Archive footage, real people giving their accounts of what they witnessed and/or did, experts giving their opinions and a narrator tying the accounts and opinions together to create and interesting and informative progression (story). This is entirely different to a dramatic film. In dramatic films the audience are not watching/listening to witness accounts or the opinions of others, the audience are the witnesses themselves!! In other words, the makers of dramatic films have to create a world (real or imagined) and make the audience feel as if they are actually there, present in that world. This is a fundamental (though not black and white) difference between documentaries and dramatic films. Not "black and white" because dramatic films will sometimes employ 3rd person accounts and documentaries will sometimes use dramatised 1st person segments.

What does all this have to do with lav or boom mics? If you read and understood what I said in my previous post about audio perspective, you would understand why boom mics are preferred for dramatic films and why lavs are more acceptable in documentaries. It's got nothing to do with your (or others') taste in sound or about lav sound being "special", it's about what is most efficient AND most effective!!

G

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks.

I know it's a different workflow, I just took what I could get. So I should just boycott all documentary work all together then and concentrate on film shoots that deal with fictional stories only.

Even though technically I'm not 'on set' while working on documentaries, so far the fictional feature I helped on, as well as a short, used real locations too. I doubt most microbudget filmmakers in my city would use a set. So therefore, I will seek out on location experience of course.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

So I should just boycott all documentary work all together then and concentrate on film shoots that deal with fictional stories only.

OK, you're just being silly now!! You're being silly for two reasons: 1. I never mentioned "fictional stories"! I was talking about dramaric filmmaking and documentary filmmaking. Dramatic filmmaking can be factual or based on fact, it doesn't have to be specifically fictional. Please read what I wrote! 2. I also didn't advise you to boycott documentary work. I just pointed out that involving yourself in documentary work is obviously going to give you experience of documentary work but experience which is of limited use in the making of dramatic films.

Doing documentary work can provide some useful experience, even for those wanting to make dramatic films, providing of course that you realise there are significant differences and that you also need to get experience of actual dramatic film work. And here, yet again, is the problem! You insist on taking something that you heard somewhere or some bizarre/obscure/non-applicable incident (usually involving filmmakers who don't know what they're doing) and trying to make a general rule from it which is applicable to all filmmaking.

Even though technically I'm not 'on set' while working on documentaries, so far the fictional feature I helped on, as well as a short, used real locations too. I doubt most microbudget filmmakers in my city would use a set. So therefore, I will seek out on location experience of course.

You're being obtuse! Documentaries tend to just use a location as is, with little or no modification. Documentary filmmakers might move the odd bit of furniture but generally there are no production designers or set decorators, no greens-people, gaffers or generator trucks, little pre-planned/rehearsed blocking, etc., etc. A very different work environment and workflow for the PSM. In other words, a location shoot in a dramatic film is frequently a very different proposition to a documentary location shoot because dramatic films rarely use an unmodified "real location". Even though a dramatic film (micro or high budget) might be filmed on location, the idea is to essentially turn that location into a film set!

Again, you are lumping all location filming together in order to turn filmmaking into a few over-simplified rules. But this over-simplification requires that you ignore the main point I was trying to explain; that by definition, documentary filmmakers are essentially trying to make a "document", while dramatic filmmakers are essentially trying to involve an audience in an illusion of reality (actual or fictional). And therefore, you are also ignoring the effect this has on the process of production sound recording. This will be the last time I tell you to stop trying to turn every disparate filmmaking experience into some never-to-be-broken rule for your own personal edition of "Filmmaking for Dummies"!

G

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

I can personally attest to the fact that booms can be distracting for documentary work...

We were shooting an interview with a rep from the ACLU just across the street from occupy wall street. I'm focusing on the shot when I notice a large dead cat start popping up in the bottom of my shot, between the two subjects.

The problem is that we, being professionals and all, were using lavs for the interview.

I cut the interview and the subjects turn around and there's this strange lady crouching behind them with a sound rig, snaking her boom up from underneath to try and get audio of the interview. She looks up at us in surprise. I turn around and there's another doc crew standing behind us, shooting over our shoulder, looking at us like we were crazy for cutting the interview. I believe they were french, and they didn't really seem to understand english well when we asked them what they were doing - I'm not even sure they actually had any idea what the interview was about. Nonetheless their boom op was quite intent on getting the best sound possible.

So clearly, boom mics are far too distracting for documentary work.

 

[Sweetie]

So I should just boycott all documentary work all together then and concentrate on film shoots that deal with fictional stories only.

Do what's right for you and your goals. You can boycott the moon for all I care. If it will help your career, do it.

 

[Alcove Audio]

there's this strange lady crouching behind them with a sound rig, snaking her boom up from underneath to try and get audio of the interview. She looks up at us in surprise. I turn around and there's another doc crew standing behind us, shooting over our shoulder, looking at us like we were crazy for cutting the interview.

But this was an interference with your project. There's a big difference between a boom-op working with your crew and someone else trying to "horn in" on your set-up. How about if there had been a boom-op quietly standing with the crew, holding the boom overhead and using only minimal twists of the boom to adjust from speaker to speaker - as an experienced boom-op would do?