Technical Advacnces in DIY Location Sound

[Indiefilming]

With all the new technology that has made it possible for independent filmmakers to shoot great looking video, is there anything on the horizon that will make it easier to capture great location sound DIY style?

I'm thinking something like a device that can recognize and capture each actor's individual voices on separate channels, isolating it from other noise and rustling, getting background on a third channel etc, so that you can clean it up in post but you have good raw audio. Something that would allow me to focus on shooting but wouldn't require two experienced pros, location sound mixer and boom operator, in order to make sure my movie doesn't blow? Take Gareth Edward's point in the 3 minute making-of Monsters:

http://www.slashfilm.com/how-gareth-edwards-shot-monsters-on-an-incredibly-low-budget/

I guess something that would truly and finally make the art of film making DIY. (Please don't take offense sound people, I'm talking about no-budget filmmakers who have no means of doing anything other than run-and-gun leveraging their rent money.)

 

[wheatgrinder]

sure, if you start with fingers, then abacus, then mechanical, then vacuum tubes, then transistors, then micro processors.. small "s" curves in the exponential curve are there. Its same as evolution..

 

[AudioPostExpert]

sure, if you start with fingers, then abacus, then mechanical, then vacuum tubes, then transistors, then micro processors.. small "s" curves in the exponential curve are there. Its same as evolution..

I'm not starting with fingers, I'm starting with CPUs in desktop computers. The fact is that for about the last quarter of the entire history of desktop computing, CPU speeds have flat lined, this isn't a small "s" curve within an exponential curve, it's not an exponential curve at all!

But regardless, even if someone releases a (theoretically impossible) 60 GHz processor tomorrow and puts us back on the exponential CPU speed curve, it still wouldn't help with the audio problem discussed in this thread.

G

 

[ClockworkNinja]

I'm not starting with fingers, I'm starting with CPUs in desktop computers. The fact is that for about the last quarter of the entire history of desktop computing, CPU speeds have flat lined, this isn't a small "s" curve within an exponential curve, it's not an exponential curve at all!

But regardless, even if someone releases a (theoretically impossible) 60 GHz processor tomorrow and puts us back on the exponential CPU speed curve, it still wouldn't help with the audio problem discussed in this thread.

G

There's very good reasons CPUs aren't getting any faster. You can only make them so fast before you run into limits with the materials you're using, and the speed of the chips winds up causing so much heat the hardware itself burns out.

Even if you somehow manage to overcome those problems, scientists have pegged the theoretical upper limits at the speed of light and it takes a staggering amount of power to accomplish that.

http://www.livescience.com/5756-computers-faster-75-years.html

 

[wheatgrinder]

these barriers are being attacked on many fronts.. something will break through, its the nature of technology, its OUR nature.

Starters.. research reversible nand gates.
The "heat" in computing comes from the discarding of electrons. Storing a bit creates no heat, only when you go to erase that bit.. that electron energy has to go somewhere.. i.e. heat. Reversible nand gates return the energy to the system, rather then throw it away ...

that's just one angle of attack, there are many others.. the point is that we dont need to KNOW what the breakthrough will be, we can make plans and assumptions based on the previous history of exponential growth.

 

[ClockworkNinja]

these barriers are being attacked on many fronts.. something will break through, its the nature of technology, its OUR nature.

Starters.. research reversible nand gates.
The "heat" in computing comes from the discarding of electrons. Storing a bit creates no heat, only when you go to erase that bit.. that electron energy has to go somewhere.. i.e. heat. Reversible nand gates return the energy to the system, rather then throw it away ...

that's just one angle of attack, there are many others.. the point is that we dont need to KNOW what the breakthrough will be, we can make plans and assumptions based on the previous history of exponential growth.

Entropy says hi.

While you're at it look up the law of diminishing returns.

 

[wheatgrinder]

diminishing returns IS the mother of break through!

Vacuum tubes could be made no faster..they were getting smaller and smaller, and BANG a NEW technology broke though the limits of vacuum tubes...

same thing for the transistor.. diminishing returns BANG the integrated circuit.. and so it will go ...

as we approach diminishing returns on IC... SOMETHING will BANG its way through..

Standing up today and saying.. "well, that is as fast as we can go" is like the guys saying there was a "wall in the sky" that nobody could flay through.. now its routine to travel faster then the speed of sound..

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Standing up today and saying.. "well, that is as fast as we can go" is like the guys saying there was a "wall in the sky" that nobody could flay through.. now its routine to travel faster then the speed of sound..

The speed of sound was a barrier, not a limit. In over a hundred years of research all we've managed to achieve is an even larger body of evidence to support the claim that the speed of light limit cannot be broken. No exponential curve here!

as we approach diminishing returns on IC... SOMETHING will BANG its way through..

Something did "bang it's way through", why do you think multiple cores and multiple CPUs were developed? The increase in technology and computing power was maintained and Moore's Law satisfied. Still doesn't help one bit with the OP though (or with the few computing problems which need speed rather than power)!

G

 

[Indiefilming]

In this instance I disagree with him entirely because almost all art is exclusive and elitist. How many great authors, musicians or painters have not been realised because of religious, political or economic circumstances? When you're destitute and dying of starvation in a drought in Ethiopia, if you get a tiny bit of money, I guarantee a canvas and set of acrylic paints (or even paper and pencil) is not going to be anywhere near the top of your shopping list. Neither is a concert violin or music, ballet or art tuition. What about the societies and religions do not permit women to express themselves artistically. I would say that the vast majority of the world's potentially great artists (in any field) have probably not been realised for economic (or other) reasons and so Cocteau's statement is itself exclusive and elitist. That's just my opinion though!
G

Right, plenty of talent is never realized for a myriad of reasons. Centuries of high infant mortality means the art of countless artists was never realized. You could make that case for anything, but that does not mean that art is innately elitist. Art is a fundamental form of human expression. It dates back back to the beginning of the human race. Ever hear of cave paintings?

And your right, it is your opinion, actually it's your assumption and certainly not a "guarantee" that Ethiopians with very little means don't make art. Dance, music and folk art are such a rich part of Ethiopian culture.

Jewish prisoners in concentration camps made art. People have always found a means of expressing themselves.

Wheatgrinder, your point is exactly why I posted this question. Technology is making exponential and miraculous leaps and bounds and I can't imagine why audio would be excluded.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Have you posted to the right forum? If so are you arguing with me? I don't think so as none of the points you made in your last post have anything to do with the original post or with what I've said!

Art is a fundamental form of human expression. It dates back back to the beginning of the human race.

Tell me something I don't know, where have I said anything that contradicts this?

Dance, music and folk art are such a rich part of Ethiopian culture.

I know, where did I say that Ethiopia has no art?

Jewish prisoners in concentration camps made art. People have always found a means of expressing themselves.

Where did I say any different? Cocteau was talking about equal opportunity, that is what I was discussing but you seem to have gone off on a tangent for the sake of having an argument!

Technology is making exponential and miraculous leaps and bounds and I can't imagine why audio would be excluded.

Where did I say that audio has been excluded from technology? I have said exactly the opposite in fact.

OK, it's obvious you've got no rational answer to the points I've made and are resorting to misrepresenting what I've said so you've got something to argue with. So, there's no point in my continuing to participate in this thread any longer.

G

 

[trueindie]

I don't know any lazy independent filmmakers who are short on effort, or who hesitates to throw every last dime at their movie.

Every time I see a mistake in something I shoot, it's invariably because of poor planning and laziness. I'm not saying that I was knowingly being lazy, but when I realize after the fact that I could have corrected the problem if I had only spent more time planning or thinking about the shoot, I know I wasn't planning hard enough. So effectively, I was being lazy. So... if you've never met a lazy independent filmmaker, let me introduce myself

I've also never met sound people who love their job so much they're willing to work on a project simply for the artistry of it, for little or no money, like the filmmaker counterparts (writers, directors, DPs, Actors etc).

I've never paid a writer, once paid a DP and never paid a sound guy. I figured I could do everything myself just well enough. I generally like my writing. I find that I'm getting better at lighting. I find even after investing in quality audio equipment, while the sound has improved just a bit, I still don't know jack about sound. So going forward, I plan to fix this problem by no longer investing in audio equipment, but by paying an audio guy to help plan my shoot and attend my shoot. I don't see any way around this. So if the audio guy demands money because he has to pay rent and feed his family, it's because he CAN, and because I can't do his job. The writer and lighting guy will continue to eat grass, and may believe that "they're willing to work on a project simply for the artistry of it," but it's really because people like me believe I can get away without paying them. If I believed I could get away without paying the audio guy, I wouldn't pay him/her either, on an indie budget that is.

Of course, audio people will always have work, as have lighting technicians, electricians, camera operators, grips and best boys since the advent of inexpensive, low-light cameras, and the great movies that have been made with these cameras and little to no crew.

How much do you pay "lighting technicians, electricians, camera operators, grips and best boys" in your independent productions? I'm going to say "not much." It's because their expertise is not, for lack of a better word, specific. I can have enough lights and create a well lit scene. It may not be Brian De Palma lit, but the general audience won't really be able to tell the difference. But if my sound is bad, which it invariably is EVERY TIME (goddamn audio... I hate audio... I just can't learn it. It makes me feel so stupid. Gawd I hate audio), even a child will know the production quality is low.

So the solution right now my friend is to budget for an audio guy. Expecting them to be on MY film for THEIR art, is a bad strategy. I'm not sure a solution for indie film audio is on the horizon. We just have to bow our heads to people like Alcove Audio and Audio Post Expert, and hope they teach us a few things here and there.

Cheers,
Aveek

 

[trueindie]

your projecting the future linearly, that is a common mistake. Technology is exponential in its rate of change. We are on the knee of the exponential curve. Not only will compute POWER increase exponentially, but so will compute speed.

Wheats, I think you're missing his point. He's not saying that computing power is going to be a problem. He's saying that our understanding of how the human ear analyzes sound is so poor that even with all the computing power in the universe, we will be unable to tell the computer WHAT it is that we want it to calculate. Hence computing power alone will not lead to a solution to the problem we face as independent filmmakers, i.e. our unwillingness to budget for audio people

 

[AudioPostExpert]

From what I can tell, the previous post is little more than spam!

Contrary to the post, the mic does not record surround sound but binaural sound and therefore only provides the 3D effect when you listen on headphones. Not much use at a film festival or watching through a TV or a stereo system at home! You would get better results with a real surround mic and even probably with a standard stereo mic or two mono mics (positioned for stereo recording).

Also, this post does not address the OP, it is designed for capturing SFX and ambiances. It will not isolate individual actors dialogue from each other or from any background noise/s. In fact, quite the opposite, you will get more noise mixed in with your actors' dialogue!

G

 

[Mitra]

From what I can tell, the previous post is little more than spam!

Contrary to the post, the mic does not record surround sound but binaural sound and therefore only provides the 3D effect when you listen on headphones. Not much use at a film festival or watching through a TV or a stereo system at home! You would get better results with a real surround mic and even probably with a standard stereo mic or two mono mics (positioned for stereo recording).

Also, this post does not address the OP, it is designed for capturing SFX and ambiances. It will not isolate individual actors dialogue from each other or from any background noise/s. In fact, quite the opposite, you will get more noise mixed in with your actors' dialogue!

G

Thank you for your excellent point. Let me now add some missing pieces of information, 3D Mic captures a psychoacoustics image and not a dummy dead type binaural mic. Being said that, once you capture a psychoacoustics of a sound, it is possible to separate the 5.1 channels by analyzing the phase and level of the signals accurately. There are several such high quality third party plugins in market which can do that, so we have not tried to reinventing the wheel. The workflow to produce a true Dolby Digital 5.1 sound track from 3D Mic recording is the very simple:

1. Record on-location surround with 3D Mic in your camera or using an external recorder.
2. Sync and edit the sound in your DAW and video editor like a regular stereo audio file. You can apply all most every audio filter, however never alter the stereo image by mixing and panning the L-R tracks.
3. Render the final audio track in 48K 16 bit resolution.
4. Use a third party plugin such as Waves UM226 to split the recording into 6 tracks (5 channels and one subwoofer channel)
5. Review and fine tune the surround image in your Video editor or DAW
6. Encode the six tracks into Dolby 5.1 AC3 encoded track by using an encoding software/plugin from Minnetonka or Main Concept
7. Author your DVD or Bluray with the AC3 track

Other unique advantage is your 3D Mic web streaming videos at Vimeo and YouTube will offer stunning surround sound to any mobile viewers using headphone, which is the default way people enjoy videos and listen music on the move. We all wear 3D glasses to watch 3D movies, so wearing a headphone to enjoy 3D audio in Cellphone, tablet or computer is not any issue anymore.
When you play a 3D Mic recording through regular stereo speaker, it produces better spatial image than a regular stereo mic. If you use a decent 5.1 computer speaker or even a Bose Companion 3 stereo speakers, you will get excellent surround effect from web streamed videos.

Lastly the sonic fidelity of 3D Mic is way superior than most mics as we use state of art sound processing technology. If you are familiar with electronics, you might have noticed that 3D Mic is powered by 18volt (9+9) and this is just not a coincidence. It is impossible to get top of the line fidelity from any preamp chip running from one or two pencil batteries as there are no such chip yet manufactured by any chip manufacturer in the world. Honestly, the audio from 3D Mic is one of the very best fidelity you possibly get in today’s market. Once you use it, you will realize the difference immediately.

(promotional video removed)

 

[Mitra]

Totally automated isolation of individual voice from a single mic recording is next to impossible by available DSP technology. The very best we can do is to make the voice standout from the rest of the dialog, but that also takes DSP and manual processing. The ideal option is to use wireless lavs on each talent and record them as mono tracks, which I understand is not a solution for the thread author.

However, if you need a high fidelity rendition of the environment with accurate sound image in a single operator in run and gun setup, there is no better option than 3D Mic.Sports Illustrated famed Bill Frakes used to film Olympic 2012 with 3D Mic, British indie filmmaker Tim Clague, Philip Bloom, world fame kayaker Steve Fisher and even Red Camera uses 3D Mic because it allows the indie filmmakers to capture that breathtaking surround in a simple run and gun setup. You can even upload the raw video stream from field with full 3D surround in YouTube, Vimeo without any processing, and then of course you can author it into full blown 5.1 Dolby Digital for screening in cinema hall or home theater.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

The ideal option is to use wireless lavs on each talent and record them as mono tracks, which I understand is not a solution for the thread author.

Wireless lavs certainly do not represent an ideal option because they do not capture any perspective, they usually represent a backup or last resort option, as any experienced PSM will tell you. At least you are trying to actually answer the OP, unlike your post previous to this, which I have reported as SPAM!

However, if you need a high fidelity rendition of the environment with accurate sound image in a single operator in run and gun setup, there is no better option than 3D Mic.

More spam! Opinionated and vested interest spam at that! 5.1 sound can be generated from any stereo mic recording, just not very well compared to alternative methods. If I wanted to record surround sound on location I would be looking at real surround DPA or Schoeps solutions rather than trying to fudge it out of stereo. Again though the only person talking about surround sound in this thread is you, it has nothing to do with the OP!

Please STOP with all the spam!!!

G

 

[Mitra]

Wireless lavs certainly do not represent an ideal option because they do not capture any perspective, they usually represent a backup or last resort option, as any experienced PSM will tell you.

Dear AudioPost Expert, booming sound for talent is not used to record perspective, in fact sound engineer tries to isolate the voice as much from the perspective else why even use a boom? The proper technique is to record dialog and ambient sound separately and mix in post. In film, we almost always record ambient sound from totally different location and then mix it. Now for indie filmmakers this was not possible due to budget and resource constraints. I have shared the latest American invention in that area, so that every indie filmmaker can now record on-location ambient and surround like big production houses.

Opinionated and vested interest spam at that!

You have not tried and compared it with any other stereo recording, so this is just your opinion right?

Again though the only person talking about surround sound in this thread is you, it has nothing to do with the OP!

I was just answering your previous opinion quoted below:

Contrary to the post, the mic does not record surround sound but binaural sound and therefore only provides the 3D effect when you listen on headphones. Not much use at a film festival or watching through a TV or a stereo system at home! You would get better results with a real surround mic and even probably with a standard stereo mic or two mono mics (positioned for stereo recording).

 

[AudioPostExpert]

... booming sound for talent is not used to record perspective

Yes it is!!! A lav is usually placed a few inches from the sound source (the actors mouth) and will therefore pickup the perspective of just a few inches away, the frequency response, mouth and breathing noises, etc. (not to mention clothing rustle). The required perspective of the sound usually needs to correlate with the perspective of the camera (distance and angle) which means in audio post a great deal of work needs to be done to "fake" the correct perspective on dialogue recorded by a lav. An experienced professional boom operator will record this perspective and alleviate the need for any "faking" in audio post, which results in both reduced time and cost and a better quality final product!

So, contrary to your statement, a lav is NOT the ideal solution!

in fact sound engineer tries to isolate the voice as much from the perspective else why even use a boom?

To reduce off axis extraneous sound as much as possible, while still capturing perspective! Let me ask the question the other way around: If recording dialogue with a lav represents the "ideal solution" why would higher budget productions ever use a boom mic or employ a professional boom operator? In audio post, unless there is a technical problem with the boom recording (EG., too much noise) or unless there is a specific artistic reason (EG., an ECU dialogue effect is required), the boom recording will always be chosen over a lav recording.

In film, we almost always record ambient sound from totally different location and then mix it. Now for indie filmmakers this was not possible due to budget and resource constraints.

This is completely untrue! Have you actually ever been involved in film making? The workflow, even for no/low budget filmmakers is to record the dialogue (with perspective!) with a shotgun mic and then to record at least 30secs of room tone in exactly the same location with the same mic! Additional ambiance SFX may well be sourced or recorded from different locations.

You have not tried and compared it with any other stereo recording, so this is just your opinion right?

True, I've never heard your mics. But, simple logic dictates that a professional quality dedicated surround mic arrangement is going to outperform a stereo mic which employs imperfect psychoacoustics to fake surround sound. Therefore your statement that "there is no better option than 3D mic" is no more than vested interest marketing spam!

G