editing Sound on the Big Screen

[mckinise]

I have a project that we are thinking about bringing to film festivals. We are worried about proper audio video syncing. Currently, the original sound, ADR, Foley, and score playback flawlessly on computer, and we have gotten it to play back on a couple different televisions with excellent synchronization of both spoken word and action sequences.

We are worried about the synchronization of sound in a larger theater. Does anyone have any tips or ideas that would help us get proper sound on the big screen?

Particulars:

GH2 Video
Basic audio was recorded with a Tascam DR-40 via Audio Technica Shotgun mic
Foley was recorded into the DR-40
Edited on laptop with external speakers and Studio Monitors
Video Editing Sony Vegas Pro 12
Audio Editing Sony Vegas Pro 12 and Audacity

Currently experimenting with 5.1 Surround Sound

And just to be precise, no budget. And sound was captured with a mixture of stereo mics for ambient noise/room noise. Shotgun for the majority of vocals with some spoken parts recorded directly into the DR-40 in mono mode.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

And are you suggesting that we DON'T even really NEED a Dolby theatrical 5.1 mix, just a plain-Jane no-name theatrical 5.1 mix should be fine at four outta five festivals? That'd be nice.

Yes and no! Technically you can't put a Dolby 5.1 mix on DCP, it has to be raw wav files. You can also put the 6 raw wav files on a BluRay and even a DVD, although on a DVD this might take up more bandwidth than available, reducing the bandwidth available for the video. So technically you do not need a Dolby mix, however there are two points to consider:

1. All HDTV's, computers (inc. laptops) and consumer AV Receivers, as well as all DVD and BluRay players with audio outputs have licensed Dolby hardware/software inside to decode a Dolby datastream. The advantage of this is that when you submit your film to a festival the initial assessment will take place on a computer or TV, probably only with stereo capability. The Dolby hardware/software will automatically downmix your 5.1 mix to stereo if that is all their playback device supports. This automatic downmixing may or may not happen with the 6 raw wav files and the people assessing your submission may therefore not hear any audio at all or may only hear the L and R (IE., No center channel dialogue).

2. To avoid translation problems which could be so severe that your film is unwatchable in a cinema, the very least you should do is have your mix checked in a theatrical dub stage. Not just to check if the fine details of your mix still work but to check you haven't made some calibration or other common level mistake which could render your dialogue inaudible when played back on a calibrated theatrical system. Every dub stage suitable for theatrical mixing (or checking a theatrical mix) is Dolby certified. So while you don't technically need a Dolby certified theatrical mix (unless you are submitting a 35mm film), in practice it would be a huge risk not hire a Dolby certified theatrical dub stage (if only for a couple of hours to check your mix). This might seem like a semantic difference but it's not. A Dolby certified mix requires the presence of a mastering technician employed by Dolby (IE. Not employed by the dub stage) and requires the creation of a Dolby print-master, this adds significant expense which is not incurred if all you are doing is checking your mix in a Dolby certified dub stage.

Just to be clear, you do not need a licence from Dolby if you create a Dolby mix yourself and put that mix on a BluRay, DVD or HDcam (or for broadcast TV either BTW). You only need to contact Dolby for a licence for a Dolby 5.1 mix on 35mm film or if you wish to use any of the Dolby logos.

I think this borders on a personal attack, and is both unfounded and uncalled for. I'm not sure just what it is that you think we don't get, APE. Yeah, we know that what we're producing is nowhere near theatrical standards for audio. Thanks for rubbing it in our faces. If we had the money, I assure you, we'd spend it on audio. But we ain't got the money, bro, and that's why it's incredibly more helpful when you simply give us advice on how we can make do with what we have.

Some of what I said may have sailed a bit close to the wind but I don't believe it was either unfounded or uncalled for. As I said in a previous post, I totally get that indie filmmakers here have limited means and cannot afford commercial theatrical quality 5.1 audio. The solution of "doing the best you can with what you've got" does not apply in this situation because you have absolutely no way of knowing if what you are doing is "the best you can", as you don't have any way of knowing if what you are doing is great, mediocre, crap or completely unwatchable!
My expert advice is NOT to attempt to create a theatrical 5.1 mix without any budget, due to the risk of unknowingly creating something completely crap or unwatchable but instead to take a far less risky middle route and create a 3.0 mix. When someone contradicts the audio information I've posted, provides highly inaccurate advice and and thereby questions my expertise, that too is a personal attack, even though it may not appear insulting. IMO that makes a stiff rebuttal justified and also in the interests of other indietalkers.

I know that indietalkers want to hear solutions and being told that something is impossible or should not be attempted completely goes against the grain and might even raise some hackles. But, just as with the visual side of film making, there are certain things you just can't do and shouldn't even attempt with sound without a fairly serious budget. Indie filmmakers accept this fact when it comes to the visual images but even knowing next to nothing about sound are still willing to argue and mislead others into believing that the same is not also sometimes true with sound.

To answer the OP's question, if the audio is in sync at home, it'll be in sync at the theater. If you require blu-ray, just give them a blu-ray, no need to toy with the sync.

This is certainly not always true! There are a number of factors which can make the "sync at home" not sync elsewhere or particularly in a cinema. Commercial dub stages spend a considerable amount on specialist sync equipment to avoid those factors. If I could have avoided buying all that sync equipment, I surely would have, but I need to be able to guarantee A/V sync, probably or possibly getting accurate sync is not good enough for me personally. I'm not suggesting that those without the proper sync equipment should "give up" but I am saying that indietalkers should at least be aware that sync can be a complex and tricky subject and that assuming it will be OK because it syncs at home will one day bite you in the a$$. As with many things regarding sound here on indietalk, if you are going to DIY audio then by definition you need to "do it yourself", being ignorant of, ignoring or denying an issue is not DIY!

Every other fest I screened at projected my 2.0 mix, and it sounded just fine (I do not mean to say that it was professional quality, only that it sounded as good at the cinema as it did in my home).

I'm sorry Cracker but unless you were sitting somewhere along the center line of the cinema, this statement cannot be true. If you were not sitting along or very close to the center line and you really did not hear any problems there are only 3 possible explanations:

1. Unlike a general audience, you were so fixated with the visual images alone you did not notice the audio problem.
2. You are completely deaf in one ear or have some other very serious hearing impairment.
3. You or the festivals in question have implemented some new technology which circumvents the accepted facts in the science of psychoacoustics.

I'm just speculating here, but I can't help but suspect that the reason the audio was funky at one of those fests might've been because they were using an older system? At this particular fest, they screened it at a newly-renovated old-timey theater. But it wasn't a big-budget corparate renovation, more like an indy DIY renovation. I dunno if that contributed to the problem, just guessing.

No Cracker, I explained why it happened. A Dolby decoder was trying to decode a LoRo mix which had been created with some phase inconsistencies. If anything, the problem you experienced is more likely in a newer cinema and at bigger festivals and this is why the bigger festivals often don't even accept an LoRo mix for screening. It was even discussed in the article Ray linked to above: "... you might have a stereo mix, but it's actually being run through the Dolby decoder, so some strange audio problems can arise--like dialogue being "tugged" into the surrounds... We run into problems with mixes done by a Pro Tools expert in his basement who has never listened to the track properly and is shocked when the content does not play back properly.":- By "never listened to the track properly" they mean at least checked the mix in a real theatrical dub stage.

By the way, if all you're concerned with is what format the festival is asking for, if they're okay with blu-ray as a screening copy, I find it highly unlikely that they'd need anything other than boring-ol' 2.0 stereo. That being said, if there's an affordable way to wrap your 2.0 mix in a 5.1 format, that sounds kinda cool, no?

Not necessarily. It's possible, depending on how their BluRay player is patched into the audio system, that they can't unwrap the 5.1 format, it's also possible that the decoding process causes delays which affect sync or for there to be one or two other potential problems. Encountering one of these problems is more likely at one of the smaller film festivals. Providing it works, encoding an LoRo mix in Dolby Digital should avoid it being decoded as an LtRt mix and therefore avoid the problem of the dialogue or other audio elements suddenly jumping to a completely different speaker but does not does nothing to solve the problem of no center position in a stereo (LoRo) mix.

Most small festivals expect a standard stereo LoRo mix, give them anything else (3.0 or 5.1 for example) and you might find your film being screened with no sound (if it's screened at all). On the other side of the coin, the bigger festivals may accept almost any audio format EXCEPT a standard stereo LoRo mix for exhibition! Have a read of the article Ray linked to in post #13, then take their advice and ask the right questions.

G

 

[rayw]

To answer the OP's question, if the audio is in sync at home, it'll be in sync at the theater. If you require blu-ray, just give them a blu-ray, no need to toy with the sync.
Cooool.
You've had 'Antihero' shown in at least a couple theaters and, one theater aside, the 2.0 mix played just fine it appears.
Do you recall if was mixed Lo/Ro or Lt/Rt? http://www.osd-uk.com/2011/10/faq-what-does-loro-and-ltrt-stand-for/
And did you do the mix yourself or farm it out?
How about for a next festival-worthy feature? Would you take a stab at 3.0 or theatrical 5.0/5.1? Do it yourself or farm it out?

Yes and no! Technically you can't put a Dolby 5.1 mix on DCP,...
Just as a general shout-out to IT-ers, has anyone here actually been required by a festival to submit a DCP or were denied acceptance for failure to deliver a DCP?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package

Mostly I've seen requests for DVDs or uploads to withoutabox.com
https://www.withoutabox.com/

1. All HDTV's, computers (inc. laptops) and consumer AV Receivers, as well as all DVD and BluRay players with audio outputs have licensed Dolby hardware/software inside to decode a Dolby datastream.
I wonder if Adobe's et al NLEs are also designed to shuck N jive under Dolby's hardware/software, due to their consumer/prosumer prevalence?

2. To avoid translation problems which could be so severe that your film is unwatchable in a cinema, the very least you should do is have your mix checked in a theatrical dub stage. Not just to check if the fine details of your mix still work but to check you haven't made some calibration or other common level mistake which could render your dialogue inaudible when played back on a calibrated theatrical system. Every dub stage suitable for theatrical mixing (or checking a theatrical mix) is Dolby certified. So while you don't technically need a Dolby certified theatrical mix (unless you are submitting a 35mm film), in practice it would be a huge risk not hire a Dolby certified theatrical dub stage (if only for a couple of hours to check your mix). This might seem like a semantic difference but it's not. A Dolby certified mix requires the presence of a mastering technician employed by Dolby (IE. Not employed by the dub stage) and requires the creation of a Dolby print-master, this adds significant expense which is not incurred if all you are doing is checking your mix in a Dolby certified dub stage.
Basically a certified Dolby tech review is insurance.
Consider it a discretionary expense, albeit a pretty important one depending upon the venue.
(Probably not needed for TromaDance. Probably. )

Just to be clear, you do not need a licence from Dolby if you create a Dolby mix yourself and put that mix on a BluRay, DVD or HDcam (or for broadcast TV either BTW). You only need to contact Dolby for a licence for a Dolby 5.1 mix on 35mm film or if you wish to use any of the Dolby logos.
Cool. Makes sense & good to know.
One less phone call or post question.

The solution of "doing the best you can with what you've got" does not apply in this situation because you have absolutely no way of knowing if what you are doing is "the best you can", as you don't have any way of knowing if what you are doing is great, mediocre, crap or completely unwatchable!
If I've assimilated all of this fairly correctly, we can DIY a theatrical bare bones 3.0 just fine. It's only when we are REQUIRED to provide theatrical 5.0/5.1 that we A. take a fairly big chance that our DIY at home 5.0/5.1 will play back "as intended" or some semblance of, or B. only a studio grade theatrical mix made in an appropriate space with proper gear can ensure proper theatrical 5.0/5.1 playback in a theater space.

Our call. Our nickel. Our gamble.
Correct?

I know that indietalkers want to hear solutions and being told that something is impossible or should not be attempted completely goes against the grain and might even raise some hackles. But, just as with the visual side of film making, there are certain things you just can't do and shouldn't even attempt with sound without a fairly serious budget.
Perhaps putting this in context of the visual element would help.

Once upon a time, back in the dark ages when our forefathers lived in caves, ate raw meat, and died before the age of twenty five by cave bears and dire wolves, films were actually shot - ON FILM!
Now, at that time, in the dark ages, before digital anything was created by the pagan gods Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, no one in their right mind would try to DEVELOP the film that they shot on super 8, 16mm or 35MM.
No.
They alllllll sent off their film rolls to a lab who "processed" it by "professionals" with the "proper facilities" and returned it to the DIY filmmaker.

Likewise...

If you want your audio to be "processed" for a THEATRICAL mix to be shown and HEARD in a THEATER you PROBABLY ought to have it mixed and edited by "professionals" with the "proper facilities" to do just that.​

Look about right?


This is certainly not always true! There are a number of factors which can make the "sync at home" not sync elsewhere or particularly in a cinema. Commercial dub stages spend a considerable amount on specialist sync equipment to avoid those factors.
Yeah, I think all this gets back to being able to ensure a service product being charged for will work properly.

Changing your own oil vs. having a shop do it. If the oil drain plug falls out and your engine melts together you can't very well sue yourself, however...

Holding pressure on a "big cut" until it quits bleeding, laying down a big squirt of Neosporin on it, then slapping a couple bandaids across it vs. having a doctor take a look at it, cleaning it out, putting in a row of sutures, and a script for antibiotics. If that bad boy gets infected and your hand/arm/foot/leg/ear/nose goes gangrenous and falls off you can't very well sue yourself, however...

Cutting your own DIY home theater 5.0 bass system mix to be played on a theatrical 5.1 full range system vs. having a audio engineer mix and cut it in the correct space with the correct gear. If it sounds like gangrenous monkey sh!te in the theater you can't very well sue yourself, however...

Same thing, I suspect.


I'm sorry Cracker but unless you were sitting somewhere along the center line of the cinema, this statement cannot be true. If you were not sitting along or very close to the center line and you really did not hear any problems there are only 3 possible explanations:

1. Unlike a general audience, you were so fixated with the visual images alone you did not notice the audio problem. Mesmeriiized!
2. You are completely deaf in one ear or have some other very serious hearing impairment. Whut? I couldn't read that outta my one good eye.
3. You or the festivals in question have implemented some new technology which circumvents the accepted facts in the science of psychoacoustics. D@mn, CF! Ur kule!



"... you might have a stereo mix, but it's actually being run through the Dolby decoder, so some strange audio problems can arise--like dialogue being "tugged" into the surrounds... We run into problems with mixes done by a Pro Tools expert in his basement who has never listened to the track properly and is shocked when the content does not play back properly.":- By "never listened to the track properly" they mean at least checked the mix in a real theatrical dub stage.
Git -R- done - IN THE RIGHT SPACE!

Most small festivals expect a standard stereo LoRo mix, give them anything else (3.0 or 5.1 for example) and you might find your film being screened with no sound (if it's screened at all).
Pat yourself on the back. Kudos to you.
I now understand why and how this happens.
Ain't no telling what the smaller festivals are doing and it probably doesn't do much good to ask them because the phone monkey proly doesn't know WTH their audio system is, either.

Has anyone here ever HAD TO SEND in a couple DVDs, one with a Lt/Rt audio mix and the other with a 3.0mix?

Good to know about the Lo/Ro split after compression vs. Lt/Rt mix before compression.

On the other side of the coin, the bigger festivals may accept almost any audio format EXCEPT a standard stereo LoRo mix for exhibition!
God, I love standardization.
Gimme a hoop, people. Just give me a blinkin' hoop to jump through, PLEEEEEASE!

R

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

Every other fest I screened at projected my 2.0 mix, and it sounded just fine (I do not mean to say that it was professional quality, only that it sounded as good at the cinema as it did in my home).

My first thought when I read this was "But wait, that's not possible! " but then APE actually beat me to it...

I'm sorry Cracker but unless you were sitting somewhere along the center line of the cinema, this statement cannot be true. If you were not sitting along or very close to the center line and you really did not hear any problems there are only 3 possible explanations:

1. Unlike a general audience, you were so fixated with the visual images alone you did not notice the audio problem.
2. You are completely deaf in one ear or have some other very serious hearing impairment.
3. You or the festivals in question have implemented some new technology which circumvents the accepted facts in the science of psychoacoustics.

4. you're wrong about what a general audience will accept as "sounded just fine"

But, just as with the visual side of film making, there are certain things you just can't do and shouldn't even attempt with sound without a fairly serious budget. Indie filmmakers accept this fact when it comes to the visual images but even knowing next to nothing about sound are still willing to argue and mislead others into believing that the same is not also sometimes true with sound.

I'd say the opposite is true. Most indie filmmakers are aware of the myriad technical reasons why the tools they are using would be considered unacceptable for feature filmmaking - and yet they keep doing the best they can with the tools they have at their disposal. Because at the end of the day, they're storytellers, not scientists.

I can sit in a theater and pick apart the visual technical problems of any film, whether it's a big budget blockbuster or no-budget indie. But when I turn to my wife and say "man, I can't believe how bad the DCT blocking was in the shadows!" you know what her response is?

"The what? I liked the scene with the dog, he was sooooo cute - they totally should have put him in the movie more!"

So the fact I've come to accept is that technical limitations - whether visual, auditory, or otherwise - are far less important to the general audience than they are to experts who work with them.

This is EXACTLY what I meant in my last post. My job is to entertain an audience! How do you entertain an audience if what you have made is not allowed to be distributed/broadcast to an audience?

'Allowed' to be distributed? How quaint. We clearly live in very different worlds.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Just as a general shout-out to IT-ers, has anyone here actually been required by a festival to submit a DCP or were denied acceptance for failure to deliver a DCP?

I know of no festival which requires or even allows a DCP for submission. Even Cannes, Berlinale and Sundance accept a DVD for submission, the problems arise when they then (hopefully) request an exhibition copy. Again though, at this time I know of no festival which only allows an exhibition copy on DCP. All the ones which allow DCP also allow an exhibition copy on 35mm film and some allow HDcam. Of course, there are many (!) festivals out there which I don't know the specs of.

Basically a certified Dolby tech review is insurance. Consider it a discretionary expense, albeit a pretty important one depending upon the venue.

No, you don't need a review by a Dolby Tech, the only time you need a Dolby Tech present if for a Dolby certified mix. The in house re-recording mixer of the theatrical dub stage is more than adequate to run your mix through with you to check it's working and if he's a good guy he might point out a few easy changes which would improve your mix. Consider this run through to be like the first test flight of a newly designed aircraft, the one which happens way before any passengers are allowed on board!

If I've assimilated all of this fairly correctly, we can DIY a theatrical bare bones 3.0 just fine.

No, you've got exactly the same translation problem with a 3.0 mix as with a 5.1 mix. IE. You're not going to have any idea of what it will sound like until it actually plays in a cinema (or theatrical dub stage). It's just a matter of risk management, you are still likely to have serious issues with your 3.0 mix but there are fewer potential catastrophic cock-ups available with a 3.0 mix than with a 5.1 mix. For example, with a 3.0 mix you can't mix what's in the LFE channel too hot and make your dialogue inaudible or have your audience holding their hands over their ears in pain, because there is no LFE channel in 3.0!

It's only when we are REQUIRED to provide theatrical 5.0/5.1 that we A. take a fairly big chance that our DIY at home 5.0/5.1 will play back "as intended" or some semblance of, or B. only a studio grade theatrical mix made in an appropriate space with proper gear can ensure proper theatrical 5.0/5.1 playback in a theater space.

There is no festival regulation or law I'm aware of which forces you to submit a 5.1 (or 3.0) mix which has been checked by a theatrical dub stage. So yes, it's your call, your nickel and your gamble. I'm just saying that it's a pretty big gamble for all the time, effort and at least some expense, to get all the way through to the exhibition phase of a decent festival only to have a disaster (or not to be screened at all) because of some problem in the mix which would have identified at a dub stage and may have only taken you a few minutes to fix. I've actually seen this happen!

Perhaps putting this in context of the visual element would help.

I'm not sure my knowledge of the visual side of things is good enough to come up with an accurate analogy but in a previous post I said "I don't see anyone on indietalk asking how to visually make a meatballs version of say "The Avengers" with a consumer camera, iMovie and no budget, let alone anyone arguing that it's possible. I don't even see anyone arguing that it's possible with a decent DSLR, Adobe Premiere and a $5k budget."

I like your little Once Upon a Time story and how filmmakers had no choice but to go to a film lab. With sound the "Once upon a time story" is as true today as it's ever been, there is no digital revolution which renders a lab (dub stage) obsolete! Digital audio has changed how we store sound and the tools for manipulating it but has not fundamentally changed how we record it, how we play it back or how we hear it and therefore how we apply the digital manipulation tools. With digital visuals there is no need for a lab and this has made filmmaking accessible to many more for much less investment. With audio the need for a dub stage has not changed but those with no budget solve the problem not with technology which makes it obsolete but by ignoring it completely (albeit by necessity).

Changing your own oil vs. having a shop do it. If the oil drain plug falls out and your engine melts together you can't very well sue yourself, however...

With a little knowledge and a few hand tools, there's no reason you can't change your oil every bit a well as a qualified mechanic. A better analogy would be a DIY'er tuning a modern car engine. Modern engines all have computer management systems, without the technology that a dealer or professional mechanic has, there really is not much chance of you tuning the engine with a screw driver and a manual. Generally, without the correct equipment even an enthusiast would not bother trying and if they did, there's got to be a fair chance they would break the engine rather than improve the tuning.

Ain't no telling what the smaller festivals are doing and it probably doesn't do much good to ask them because the phone monkey proly doesn't know WTH their audio system is, either.

In the article you linked to: "My hope here is to provide some suggestions and actions to better prepare filmmakers for what they may encounter in the wild west of film festivals, screenings and art-house runs."

Now you know what he meant when he said "the wild west"!

G

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Most indie filmmakers are aware of the myriad technical reasons why the tools they are using would be considered unacceptable for feature filmmaking - and yet they keep doing the best they can with the tools they have at their disposal.

That's simply not true or at least not true in the context of this thread. I don't see any no budget indie filmmakers doing the best they can with the tools they have to tell a range of stories, big action adventure green screen and CGI dependent epics for example. Why not? No budget indie filmmakers wisely steer clear of what is (at least currently) beyond their means and budget. So yes, indie filmmakers do the best they can with what they've got and do amazingly with what they've got but they do that within the limits of what is practical and avoid what is not practical and beyond those limits. Except apparently when it comes to sound!!

Because at the end of the day, they're storytellers, not scientists.

Again, not really true, turn the argument around, can you tell me of just one film maker who does not employ any sort of science or technology in their filmmaking?

Filmmaking is the most technologically advanced storytelling art form. All the artistic talent in the world is useless if you don't have the technical skill or knowledge to express it. The end result is not much different to having all the technical knowledge and equipment but no story to tell and no storytelling ability. To make something even half decent requires storytelling skills, knowledge and equipment. Just completely ignoring one or more of these areas does not make it go away.

We clearly live in very different worlds.

That much seems obvious to both of us. There, something we agree on!

G

 

[Cracker Funk]

When someone contradicts the audio information I've posted, provides highly inaccurate advice and and thereby questions my expertise, that too is a personal attack, even though it may not appear insulting. IMO that makes a stiff rebuttal justified and also in the interests of other indietalkers.

Well, that explains a lot. I feel very strongly that you are wrong about this -- when someone merely disagrees with you, that is absolutly not tantamount to a personal attack. Surely, you don't feel this way in the professional world; you wouldn't survive. Yet, why do you feel this way on here? You don't really expect anybody to kowtow to you, do you?

I know that indietalkers want to hear solutions and being told that something is impossible or should not be attempted completely goes against the grain and might even raise some hackles. But, just as with the visual side of film making, there are certain things you just can't do and shouldn't even attempt with sound without a fairly serious budget. Indie filmmakers accept this fact when it comes to the visual images but even knowing next to nothing about sound are still willing to argue and mislead others into believing that the same is not also sometimes true with sound.

I don't know where you pull these generalizations from. I know plenty of filmmakers who spend almost NOTHING on visuals. Oh wait, I'm one of them.

Here's my main problem with your logic, though. Take, for example, your recommendation that a 3.0 mix should be the absolute bare minimum for festival submission. Well, what if a filmmaker simply doesn't have the means to do that? Are you telling me that they should just stop making movies, because they can't mix to 3.0?

Of course not, that would be asinine. Most no-budget filmmakers do not have anything other than 2.0 as an option. Likewise, most no-budget filmmakers do not have the means and/or skills to produce cinematography that is any good.

IDOM, Ray, APE, I never said "Antihero" sounded good in the cinemas, though I can see how the way I phrased things could make you think that's what I was saying. I said it sounded as good in the theater as it did in my home. Which ain't sayin' much. A couple of examples:

First, there are some stereo systems that are fucking magic. I don't know how it works, maybe APE can explain it, but my home stereo (ten-years old, Sony 5.1), I kid you not, turns my 2.0 into surround sound. Seriously. All the dialog, most of the sound effects come from the center speaker. The surround speakers can only be heard when music gets loud. I don't understand this magic, but I swear, my humble ten-year-old $400 surround sound actually does this.

I noticed a similar effect in NY, when it screened at the reRun theater. You can tell me it's not possible, I'll tell you you're wrong. No, I'm not fixated on visuals. Actually, when I'm in a screening, if anything I'm fixated on the people around me.

By the way, when you say stuff like that, APE, do you realize that you're talking down to me? Dude, when I make a first rough cut of a film, I often make my first cuts blindly. No really, I look away from the screen and just listen (normally, I just do this for dialog, but sometimes for other stuff). Yes, I pay attention to audio!

Anyway, back on subject, there were a couple fests I attended that only had 2.0 stereo audio. At the Seattle True Indie Film Fest, my film screened in a small theater dedicated to improv comedy. It was projected from a regular consumer-level projector, onto a jenky DIY screen, with an old-school 2.0 stereo, with those big-ass 4-foot tall speaker towers. This isn't Cannes. It's zero dollar filmmaking, being screened at a very humble fest, with an audience that is expecting low production value. They got what they expected (and most of them had a lot of fun).

And yes, APE, I very much remember your explanation of what caused the nightmare scenario in which audio was jumping from speaker-to-speaker. That's why I referenced the thread you started, and recommended that the OP check it out. When I speculated that the age of the theater might have something to do with it, I don't think I'm contradicting your very tech-specific explanation.

Ray, to answer your questions -- I mixed it myself, and it was LoRo. The next feature I intend to make money off of, so I'll be hiring people to do the audio (and coloring). I'd like it to be 5.1, but I don't know that I'll be able to afford that.

 

[rayw]

G, thank you for your follow up.

No, I'm not fixated on visuals. Actually, when I'm in a screening, if anything I'm fixated on the people around me.
Honestly, this sounds about dead-on-balls right.
In the same situation I think not only would I be hyper aware of every woulda-coulda-shoulda production flaw within the... MY! film but I'd be over-analyzing if the audience was emotionally responding "correctly" to the emotions I was trying to evoke.
There's laughing at your film, and then there's laughing "at" your film.
Little would escape or be forgiven of myself..

Ray, to answer your questions -- I mixed it myself, and it was LoRo. The next feature I intend to make money off of, so I'll be hiring people to do the audio (and coloring). I'd like it to be 5.1, but I don't know that I'll be able to afford that.
Gracias, CF!
Don't worry about theatrical 5.1.
It's impossible.
It can't be done.
Hack.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I feel very strongly that you are wrong about this -- when someone merely disagrees with you, that is absolutly not tantamount to a personal attack. Surely, you don't feel this way in the professional world; you wouldn't survive. Yet, why do you feel this way on here? You don't really expect anybody to kowtow to you, do you?

When someone employs me, they are employing me for my artistic storytelling abilities and for my technical expertise. My storytelling is an artistic opinion and completely open to discussion, revision, question and contradiction. My technical expertise isn't though, because it's based on facts (rather than opinion) and professional experience of applying those facts. An employer can choose to ignore or discount my technical expertise/advice but I can't, off the top of my head, remember an instance of this, that is after all partly why they are paying me.

This doesn't mean to say that even on technical matters I'm always 100% right and I have no problem with someone questioning the technical information I'm providing. But outright disputing my expertise is another matter, that's my reputation and it is personal. I'm not saying my expertise cannot be disputed but there has to be some evidence or factual basis to it surely?

I know plenty of filmmakers who spend almost NOTHING on visuals.

So do I, I don't understand what that has to do with the discussion?

Here's my main problem with your logic, though. Take, for example, your recommendation that a 3.0 mix should be the absolute bare minimum for festival submission.

The main problem I have with this statement in not to do with logic but with reading ability. I have never stated that a 3.0 mix should be the absolute minimum for festival submission. A 3.0 mix is not going to sound too great with no dialogue because the festival only supports 2.0 stereo!

I said that 3.0 is the absolute minimum for theatrical screening. The need for a centre channel has been a completely accepted fact since the first film ever distributed with sync sound, this fact has never been disputed and no film has ever been released (that I've ever heard of) which doesn't use a centre channel. The reasons why 2.0 stereo has never been used as a film format I explained in the Stereo Warning thread. The fact that a centre channel is a basic requirement of cinema sound is NOT some new or controversial theory, in fact it couldn't be older, less controversial or more of an accepted fact! (Except apparently on indietalk!)

Knowing and understanding why 2.0 stereo cannot be and never is used in theatrical films, if a small regional festival only accepts films for theatrical exhibition with audio in 2.0 stereo format, this should be a good indication that the festival organisers either know very little about screening films or that they are catering specifically for film makers who know very little about screening films. Unless the screening of the films is going to be in a very small room, in which case 2.0 is not so much of a problem, as explained in the Stereo Warning thread.

Well, what if a filmmaker simply doesn't have the means to do that? Are you telling me that they should just stop making movies, because they can't mix to 3.0? Of course not, that would be asinine. Most no-budget filmmakers do not have anything other than 2.0 as an option. Likewise, most no-budget filmmakers do not have the means and/or skills to produce cinematography that is any good.

No, I don't think they should give up, any more than the filmmakers who do not have the means to produce cinematography that is any good should give up. But then filmmakers who "do not have the means and/or skills to produce cinematography that is any good" would not try and make a 3D action adventure green screen feature length epic! Neither would they argue it's even possible with a $200 camera (including lenses) and iMovie. Yet this is exactly what is being argued by some in this thread or rather the equivalent of it as equated to sound. You could probably do something visually like "The Avengers" acceptably for $22m rather than $220m but with no budget, a consumer level camera and consumer software would you even try? Would you recommend to someone on indietalk that they should do the best they can with what they've got and that it'll probably be good enuf or would you tell them they don't have the equipment and recommend they drop the idea as too likely to fail and try a simple drama, comedy or horror which still probably won't be great but is at least much more likely to result in something half decent? If it's the latter, then we are in total agreement because that's EXACTLY what I'm doing in this thread!

First, there are some stereo systems that are fucking magic. I don't know how it works, maybe APE can explain it, but my home stereo (ten-years old, Sony 5.1), I kid you not, turns my 2.0 into surround sound. Seriously. All the dialog, most of the sound effects come from the center speaker. The surround speakers can only be heard when music gets loud. I don't understand this magic, but I swear, my humble ten-year-old $400 surround sound actually does this.

I noticed a similar effect in NY, when it screened at the reRun theater. You can tell me it's not possible, I'll tell you you're wrong. No, I'm not fixated on visuals. Actually, when I'm in a screening, if anything I'm fixated on the people around me.

This is called up-mixing, there some consumer units and standalone software packages which create upmixes. IE. Take a 2.0 mix, analyse it's contents, rearrange it and turn into surround. Sometimes it can work surprisingly well and sometimes it's a disaster, it depends on the quality of it's algorithms and of course the 2.0 mix it's fed with in the first place. I've never heard of a unit like this being used in a cinema though. It's far more likely that the effect you heard was the result of feeding a LoRo mix into a Dolby unit which decoded it as an LtRt mix, thereby creating the centre channel and surround info. Essentially exactly the same scenario as happened to you previously but this time you were lucky and the decoding worked to your advantage, which is not uncommon either. There's no real way of knowing how a Dolby decoder unit will decode a stereo mix (unless it's an LtRt mix of course), sometimes it will make your mix sound like a decent surround mix, sometimes it will destroy your film.

Dude, when I make a first rough cut of a film, I often make my first cuts blindly. No really, I look away from the screen and just listen (normally, I just do this for dialog, but sometimes for other stuff).

Unless you edit the entire film and submit it to a festival without ever looking at it, your analogy is not the same.

Anyway, back on subject, there were a couple fests I attended that only had 2.0 stereo audio. At the Seattle True Indie Film Fest, my film screened in a small theater dedicated to improv comedy. It was projected from a regular consumer-level projector, onto a jenky DIY screen, with an old-school 2.0 stereo, with those big-ass 4-foot tall speaker towers.

The smaller the room the less of a problem a 2.0 stereo mix is. This is why 2.0 stereo was the standard for TV broadcast for so long and why a format with a centre speaker (such as 5.1) is a nice luxury in a home rather than a necessity.

G

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

IDOM, Ray, APE, I never said "Antihero" sounded good in the cinemas, though I can see how the way I phrased things could make you think that's what I was saying. I said it sounded as good in the theater as it did in my home. Which ain't sayin' much.

Just to be clear CF - my "that can't be true" comment about your sound being 'fine' was meant to be sarcastic. I absolutely believe it sounded fine, both to you and the audience. That's been my point all along, and while I wasn't entirely surprised by APE's response to it, I didn't actually expect him to go as far as to seriously tell you that you either didn't actually experience what you said you did, or that something was wrong with you because your experience doesn't match his expectations.

My storytelling is an artistic opinion and completely open to discussion, revision, question and contradiction. My technical expertise isn't though, because it's based on facts (rather than opinion) and professional experience of applying those facts. [...] This doesn't mean to say that even on technical matters I'm always 100% right and I have no problem with someone questioning the technical information I'm providing. But outright disputing my expertise is another matter, that's my reputation and it is personal. I'm not saying my expertise cannot be disputed but there has to be some evidence or factual basis to it surely?

Here's the thing - I'm not disputing your technical expertise at all. I'm not disputing any of the technical information you've provided here; in fact I find it interesting to read and helpful in understanding the considerations that go into producing a professional theatrical mix. And as I've said before - given the time and budget to do that kind of thing I'll gladly turn it over to you or someone like you to deal with.

What I am disputing is your opinion that your technical expertise trumps the practical experience of what will work for an audience vs. what is achievable within the limitations most of us are working with. Up until your comment on CF's experiences that was merely implicit in most of your comments, but now you've made it explicit - your technical expertise and understanding apparently leaves you unable to accept someone else's opinion about how something sounded. It's like a classically trained chef declaring that I can't possibly be enjoying the burger I'm eating - and then insisting that no matter how much effort I put into making that burger better no one else will really enjoy it either.

Now, I don't expect to change your opinion, just to provide a counterpoint. And I'm sure you'll continue to insist it isn't possible, and we'll continue to make, and enjoy, great burgers.

 

[mlesemann]

ItDonnedOnMe:

we'll continue to make, and enjoy, great burgers.

You just made my day.

 

[Cracker Funk]

IDOM, I'm at least slightly embarrassed that I didn't read the sarcasm. Cheers, bro. The burger analogy is spot-on.

Ray, if you edit it yourself, you're already WELL aware of the production flaws (and probably even if you don't edit it yourself), you'll see nothing new at a screening. It's a lot of fun to see/hear reactions from the audience that you never planned for or expected. Hopefully, your audience will find surprises in your movie, and you'll find surprises in your audience.

By the way, when you say stuff like that, APE, do you realize that you're talking down to me? Dude, when I make a first rough cut of a film, I often make my first cuts blindly. No really, I look away from the screen and just listen (normally, I just do this for dialog, but sometimes for other stuff). Yes, I pay attention to audio!

Unless you edit the entire film and submit it to a festival without ever looking at it, your analogy is not the same.

There was no analogy. I was only pointing out to you the fact that I often edit to audio before editing to video. I was only keying you into one aspect of my editing process, and that process makes audio a HUGE priority, just in the first rough cut. This editing method that I use applies mostly to dialog scenes, but seeing as how I'm editing zero-budget stuff, the vast majority of what I edit is dialog.

You inferred that I (like all other indie filmmakers) must be so fixated on visuals that I don't notice audio. I'm only trying to convince you of how wrong that line of thinking is. When editing, audio LITERALLY comes first for me, very often.

It feels like you're trying to bear this cross on your back, but nobody is trying to martyr you. You've got this idea that you are the rejected step-child, and nobody will listen to you. YES, WE'RE LISTENING TO YOU! VERY APPRECIATIVELY SO! But we could do without the constant chiding.

I mentioned that many filmmakers spend practically nothing on video, and you say that you don't know what that has to do with this discussion. What it has to do with this discussion is that you seem to think we'll go the end of Earth to get just the right shot, but we don't care about audio. You're wrong. In ultra-low-budget filmmaking, if the audio sucks, the video probably does too.

We care about audio, stop talking down to us. There's nothing wrong with politely reminding us that audio is important (like a certain IT'er frequently does), but when you talk down to us it's insulting, and it's getting very old.

No, I don't think they should give up, any more than the filmmakers who do not have the means to produce cinematography that is any good should give up. But then filmmakers who "do not have the means and/or skills to produce cinematography that is any good" would not try and make a 3D action adventure green screen feature length epic! Neither would they argue it's even possible with a $200 camera (including lenses) and iMovie. Yet this is exactly what is being argued by some in this thread or rather the equivalent of it as equated to sound. You could probably do something visually like "The Avengers" acceptably for $22m rather than $220m but with no budget, a consumer level camera and consumer software would you even try? Would you recommend to someone on indietalk that they should do the best they can with what they've got and that it'll probably be good enuf or would you tell them they don't have the equipment and recommend they drop the idea as too likely to fail and try a simple drama, comedy or horror which still probably won't be great but is at least much more likely to result in something half decent? If it's the latter, then we are in total agreement because that's EXACTLY what I'm doing in this thread!

Yes, it is true that lack of video/lighting equipment, as well as lack of expert crew, access to locations, cast, etc., severely limits what a zero-budget filmmaker will try to shoot. So, with the same limitations in mind (cheap gear, small/inexperienced crew) just WHAT types of things should we avoid filming, when considering audio? Cuz this is the first time I've heard you say anything like this, and the masochist in me wants to hear more of your thoughts on it.

As to the only civil conversation we've had, the one revolving around the technical aspects of screening audio systems, the theater Antihero screened at, in NYC, is not even slightly a standard movie theater. The theater seats 70 people, is located at the back of a restaurant, has car-seats standing-in for theater seats, uses a consumer-level projector, and I'm pretty sure their audio is consumer-level, as well. So, it makes sense to me that their audio system did the same up-mixing that my system at home does.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

IDOM: You are cherry picking the anecdotal evidence which supports your argument and simply ignoring the anecdotal evidence which does not and you are deliberately mis-representing my knowledge, experience and advice, to peddle your own advice. Advice which if taken will sooner or later destroy someone's festival screening! Of course it's up to you if you don't care about your screening or if it's destroyed and your opinion is obviously not going to be changed. It's for the sake of others who maybe reading this thread who put a great deal of time and effort into hopefully achieving a successful screening that I feel so strongly the importance of disputing your advice!

What I am disputing is your opinion that your technical expertise trumps the practical experience of what will work for an audience vs. what is achievable within the limitations most of us are working with.

The expertise for which I am and have been employed for over 20 years is precisely because of my "practical experience of what will work for an audience". Technical expertise is a necessary part of the equation but by no means the only or even the defining part! Do you really have so little idea of what audio post production is?

Up until your comment on CF's experiences that was merely implicit in most of your comments, but now you've made it explicit - your technical expertise and understanding apparently leaves you unable to accept someone else's opinion about how something sounded.

Again, this is a misrepresentation of what I have said. I never said that it was impossible under any circumstances to create a LoRo mix (for example) and have it sound decent or even good in a cinema. In this thread I've specifically listed those situations where it can work. For example: If all the audience is seated along the centre line of the cinema, if the screening room isn't actually a cinema but a much smaller room, if all those watching the film are filmmakers fixated on say the visuals alone, if all those watching the film are severely hearing impaired or in the case of an LoRo mix being decoded by a Dolby unit as an LtRt mix which by chance then results in an acceptable surround mix.

In this last case, there is a different anecdotal experience recounted by CrackerFunk, referred to previously in this thread and conveniently ignored by IDOM, where his LoRo mix was decoded by a Dolby unit as an LtRt mix but this time instead of an acceptable surround mix his screening was effectively destroyed. This significantly less desirable outcome is not at all uncommon and is also mentioned in the magazine article liked to by rayw: http://www.documentary.org/magazine/...loud-and-clear. BTW, if anyone is interested in what actually happened at Cracker's screening and a more detailed explanation of why, here is the thread.

In other words, a LoRo stereo mix created in a basement studio or even a DIY LoRo mix can work acceptably well in a cinema but only under some lucky or unusual circumstances. My advice here has NOT been based on what "might be possible" (IE. Lucky or unusual circumstances) but on what is most likely or overwhelmingly likely. Whether and individual IT'er wants to take the risk that all their hard work is trashed during screening is up to them, I'm just providing information and advice on how to minimise that risk and disputing contradictory advice which would maximise that risk.

It's like a classically trained chef declaring that I can't possibly be enjoying the burger I'm eating - and then insisting that no matter how much effort I put into making that burger better no one else will really enjoy it either.

No, that's another complete misrepresentation! If you want to use chefs and burgers as an analogy, I'll play the game: No chef in history (AFAIK) has ever made a dog-meat burger, no chef would consider putting a dog-burger on the menu of a restaurant or burger bar because it almost certainly wouldn't work, the vast majority of customers would reject it and the chef would probably be considered an imbecile. Of course, there's probably a few crazies out there who see nothing wrong with the idea of a dog-burger and would actually like it.

As quite clearly explained in my previous post, it is not just the opinion of one "classically trained chef" (me apparently) but the accepted fact of ALL theatrically released films in the history of theatrically released films (with sync sound), of all those who do or have ever made them and of all those who make or have ever made theatres and theatrical sound systems. It couldn't be further from a one man or controversial opinion, except maybe to someone who actually likes dog-burgers!

G

 

[rayw]

Mmmm... ! Dogggggg burrrrgerrrrr... !

 

[rayw]

Yummy dogggggg burrrrgerrrrr... !

 

[AudioPostExpert]

You inferred that I (like all other indie filmmakers) must be so fixated on visuals that I don't notice audio. I'm only trying to convince you of how wrong that line of thinking is. When editing, audio LITERALLY comes first for me, very often.

I mentioned that many filmmakers spend practically nothing on video, and you say that you don't know what that has to do with this discussion. What it has to do with this discussion is that you seem to think we'll go the end of Earth to get just the right shot, but we don't care about audio. You're wrong. In ultra-low-budget filmmaking, if the audio sucks, the video probably does too.

No, I stated that some indie filmmakers are fixated on the visuals and don't notice the audio. I've seen indie films which were quite passable visually but had terrible audio but I can't remember the other way around (passable audio and terrible visuals). Of course, I've seen plenty with equally poor visuals and audio. I've also seen quite a few times on IT comments on shorts/features where the visuals had some obvious weaknesses but would be passable at a low level of acceptance but the comments have made little or no mention of the appalling sound (at any level) or even stated that the appalling sound was OK. In my experience, both on IT and at film festivals, the general trend is an imbalance between the visual standards and audio standards. I'm not saying this is necessarily true of ALL lo/no budget film makers, just in my experience the great majority.

Yes, it is true that lack of video/lighting equipment, as well as lack of expert crew, access to locations, cast, etc., severely limits what a zero-budget filmmaker will try to shoot. So, with the same limitations in mind (cheap gear, small/inexperienced crew) just WHAT types of things should we avoid filming, when considering audio? Cuz this is the first time I've heard you say anything like this, and the masochist in me wants to hear more of your thoughts on it.

I think we are talking at cross purposes. This thread has revolved, at least in part, around creating a 5.1 theatrical mix with a little consumer equipment, no expertise and no budget. The argument put forth by some is that the result admittedly won't be great but will be good enuf and that's what zero budget filmmakers always do. My point is that this argument is not true, as you state in the quote above, zero-budget filmmakers only "try to shoot" within the severe limits imposed by lack of expertise, equipment, access to locations, etc., and do not attempt to "do the best they can" in filmmaking areas well outside these limits. This isn't the "always" stated, this is an "always" within severe limits! The example I gave of something well outside these limits was of a 3D action adventure green screen epic. What I am stating is that not only are there limits on "what a zero-budget filmmaker will try to shoot" but the same logic and understanding of the limits imposed by the lack of expertise, equipment and budget also needs to be applied to the audio side of filmmaking. A 5.1 theatrical mix is an audio example of something which is beyond the limits imposed by a lack of expertise, equipment and zero or little budget. Even though this fact is something every filmmaker should know as well as they know the limits on the visual side of zero budget filmmaking, there are some on this thread who not only refuse to accept it themselves but continue to argue and advise others they should ignore it.

Just to be clear, I am not saying a filmmaker should "give up" because they don't have the expertise, equipment or budget to make a theatrical 5.1 mix, any more than I'm saying a filmmaker should give up making films if they don't have the expertise, equipment or budget to shoot a 3D green screen action adventure epic. My advice, as I believe yours would be, is to do something else. You might suggest instead of the action adventure epic, shooting a comedy, drama or horror for example and on the audio side, I suggest a 3.0 mix instead of a theatrical 5.1 mix.

As to the only civil conversation we've had, the one revolving around the technical aspects of screening audio systems, the theater Antihero screened at, in NYC, is not even slightly a standard movie theater. The theater seats 70 people, is located at the back of a restaurant, has car-seats standing-in for theater seats, uses a consumer-level projector, and I'm pretty sure their audio is consumer-level, as well. So, it makes sense to me that their audio system did the same up-mixing that my system at home does.

Specific upmixing in consumer equipment is rare, although Dolby Pro-Logic is built into pretty much every consumer AV Receiver on the market and can sometimes achieve a similar result to specific upmixing technology. Dolby Pro-Logic is the consumer equivalent to the Dolby Stereo which is built into theatrical Dolby Decoder Units systems and works in the same way, processing stereo LtRt mixes to extract the surround/centre channel and rebuild the surround mix. Even with a consumer system, I still think this explanation is far more likely than a specific upmixing function being employed.

G

 

[chlsy8]

What's the requirement of most higher end film festivals? 5.1 or stereo? I am talking about DCP files of course.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

What's the requirement of most higher end film festivals? 5.1 or stereo? I am talking about DCP files of course.

DCP is a purely theatrical distribution format and therefore does not support stereo. The minimum you can put on a DCP is a 3.0 mix. 3.0 mixes are very uncommon though, all (or virtually all) the features screened at the high end festivals will be in at least 5.1 and occasionally even 7.1.

G

 

[chlsy8]

Thanks, Audiopostexpert.

I heard a lot of film festivals (even higher end ones) sometimes have trouble of 5.1 sounding system so I was recommended to use stereo instead since it is more versatile. Is that correct?

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I heard a lot of film festivals (even higher end ones) sometimes have trouble of 5.1 sounding system so I was recommended to use stereo instead since it is more versatile. Is that correct?

No, that is not correct! Qualifying this statement though; it depends what you mean by a "higher end" festival. Those festivals which screen in a real commercial cinema (and therefore accept DCP) do not even accept a stereo sound mix. So there's nothing "more versatile" about a mix which is unusable! Smaller film festivals don't screen in commercial cinemas but in ad hoc venues which may only have a stereo system and therefore cannot screen a film with a 3.0, 5.1 or other multi-channel audio formats. If you read through this thread and read the links posted in this thread you will find this explanation.

G

 

[chlsy8]

No, that is not correct! Qualifying this statement though; it depends what you mean by a "higher end" festival. Those festivals which screen in a real commercial cinema (and therefore accept DCP) do not even accept a stereo sound mix. So there's nothing "more versatile" about a mix which is unusable! Smaller film festivals don't screen in commercial cinemas but in ad hoc venues which may only have a stereo system and therefore cannot screen a film with a 3.0, 5.1 or other multi-channel audio formats. If you read through this thread and read the links posted in this thread you will find this explanation.

G

Thanks. What I mean by higher end film festivals is A- B+ film festivals - for example, montreal, hamptons, mill valley telluride AFI etc. I suppose for film festivals that show movies in ad hoc venues, they won't even accept DCP files?