Trying to make shots of animals more interesting.

[harmonica44]

I was invited by a producer to go to the U.S. to direct a nature/travel documentary. However, because of the budget, we only have a 50mm lens and that's it. Not an ideal lens for shooting animals since you cannot zoom in, and you cannot get close to them without them moving away further.

I feel my shots are very limited cause of this, especially when wanting to make animals interesting and close up, rather than always being at a distance. Is there anything I could do, or any shots I could come up with, to compensate, to make up for the lack of close ups?

What can I do to make animals interesting in distant shots? We're shooting beavers, birds, whatever is in the Pacific Northwest, that I could get the camera on. Thanks.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

There are countless threads on IT where similar suggestions are made about audio - that at minimum people should invest in a mic/boom/recorder setup in order to record dialogue; again, a starting point.

No, they're not similar suggestions made about audio, they're similar suggestions made about the recording of dialogue! There are some threads and suggestions about audio overall but generally they are ignored/not implemented.

Most people here are working with, and discussing, 'prosumer' cinematography equipment that would be consider little more than a minimum starting point by most professionals.

Now we're getting somewhere!

Just on the dialogue recording front, the average H4/NTG 1 type combo is below the minimum starting point for professionals but this combo is not so drastically far from the professional starting point, at least it's vaguely in the ball park in some basic respects. Not so when it comes to audio post however. Forget about a minimum professional starting point, many lo/no budget filmmakers use equipment which is at or near the minimum starting point for consumers! Minimum starting point for low end professionals (low budget TV, pro web work, etc.) is an acoustically treated room with some decent music type near-field monitors positioned appropriately. Higher quality/budget TV work requires a more professionally treated/tuned room and full range mid-field monitors, while big budget TV or any budget theatrical films require larger custom built/designed rooms with custom far-field monitor array systems. The vast majority of lo/no budget filmmakers process and mix their audio on laptops, cheap consumer computer speakers or in the best cases, cheap consumer grade "monitors", poorly positioned in untreated rooms. In general they don't even know what the minimum professional starting point is, let alone make any attempt to get anywhere near it!

G

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

No, they're not similar suggestions made about audio, they're similar suggestions made about the recording of dialogue! There are some threads and suggestions about audio overall but generally they are ignored/not implemented.

Ok, but we're talking about the similarity of suggesting they need to get a zoom lens and suggesting someone needs to get a boom mic. Not about the much larger topics of professional cinematography or audio.

Just on the dialogue recording front, the average H4/NTG 1 type combo is below the minimum starting point for professionals but this combo is not so drastically far from the professional starting point, at least it's vaguely in the ball park in some basic respects.

Which is exactly the same thing I would say about the zoom lens I suggested from a cinematography standpoint.

Not so when it comes to audio post however.

Once again - nothing in this discussion was about the broader topics, it was all about choosing the appropriate tool from a functionality (not quality) standpoint for the single task at hand. A boomed mic is generally the appropriate tool for recording dialogue, and a zoom/telephoto lens is the appropriate tool for shooting a subject at a distance.

You suggested that the recommendation to spend money on a zoom lens was somehow different than the typical advice given on IT about recording audio, and I disagreed because it's a common suggestion that people at least invest in a boom/mic/recorder combo for recording dialogue. That's it.

Forget about a minimum professional starting point, many lo/no budget filmmakers use equipment which is at or near the minimum starting point for consumers!

Absolutely - on both the audio & visual fronts. Again, you claimed that somehow there's a significant difference between the focus on audio & visuals around here, but I think that's biased by your extensive understanding of the audio realm, and you don't seem to be aware that the situation is almost exactly the same on the visual side.

 

[jax_rox]

But the fact is there's no equivalent to the two of you on the cinematography side who's jumping into camera discussions and saying "don't forget - lighting is half the experience!" and discussing what makes the difference between amateur and professional cinematography.

Without getting too far off-topic, the times I have jumped in to threads to tout the importance of lighting over camera, I am often met with similar responses to those in the audio threads.

Including 'don't have the budget' and 'gotta do the best with what we've got'.

I think the difference is that for a vast majority of people, an audio post that will get you to a commercially deliverable standard is way out of reach.

On the visual side, you can certainly shoot and post things to a commercially deliverable standard without the same kind of investment that you would need on the audio side, it's just that it won't look as good.

You could shoot something on a $2k Blackmagic Cinema Camera and colour it on the DaVinci that comes with it. It could potentially look shocking, but it could quite easily meet requirements.

On the audio side, I don't think it would be possible to spend $2k and have audio that meets requirements for anything other than film festivals.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

Without getting too far off-topic, the times I have jumped in to threads to tout the importance of lighting over camera, I am often met with similar responses to those in the audio threads.

Including 'don't have the budget' and 'gotta do the best with what we've got'.

That was kind of my larger point, that it's not just professional-level audio that's being neglected here.

On the visual side, you can certainly shoot and post things to a commercially deliverable standard without the same kind of investment that you would need on the audio side, it's just that it won't look as good.

It's definitely possible, but I'd say on either side it's a roll of the dice - for instance I've known a couple people who shot low-budget ($100-300k) features that looked good but were unable to secure certain avenues of distribution because they shot 24 in 60i and then failed to do their pulldown before editing. Their audio wasn't an issue but their visuals won't pass certain major distributors QC process without a time consuming (and therefore expensive) shot-by-shot fix. It wasn't even a question of lack of budget in those situations until they hit the wall - if they'd known what the professional requirements were up front they probably could have met them.

On the audio side, I don't think it would be possible to spend $2k and have audio that meets requirements for anything other than film festivals.

Maybe not, but I'm sure it would be entirely possible to deliver audio that meets the technical requirements but sounds bad. Public Enemies is a film that comes to mind, I remember being shocked that the audio mix was as bad as it was considering I was watching it in a commercial theater - but it clearly passed all the technical requirements.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

You suggested that the recommendation to spend money on a zoom lens was somehow different than the typical advice given on IT about recording audio ...

No I didn't, you brought up recording production dialogue, this is what I actually said originally:

"What's interesting is in the case of poor sound/sound design, the answer I most commonly hear on IT is something along the lines of; "of course I'd like better sound but we didn't have the budget", "as amateurs/no budget indie filmmakers we've got to learn to do the best with what we've got", etc."

And you accused me of not reading properly and of being "obtuse", tsk!

On the audio side, I don't think it would be possible to spend $2k and have audio that meets requirements for anything other than film festivals.

It would be borderline impossible to achieve commercial or near commercial standards with $2k of equipment. 3k-4k would be more realistic, depending on what commercial standards we're talking about. For example, most of the features competing at the top tier film festivals will likely have spent 10-100 times your $2k suggestion on audio post and that would be on hiring personnel and renting facilities, which cost hundreds of thousands, millions or tens of millions to create. Because of this cost, there's only two professional filmmakers I know who have constructed their own audio post facilities, everyone else hires instead.

Many lo/no budget filmmakers are way too obsessed with cameras and camera equipment to consider spending 3-4k on audio equipment. Additionally, with such a small budget for audio equipment there is a higher requirement for skill, experience and knowledge, which takes a considerable amount of time and dedication to gain, way more than the vast majority are prepared to give especially as it's essentially outside their area of primary interest. So, I agree with your statement that pretty much any commercial standard is out of reach for the vast majority.

I've known a couple people who shot low-budget ($100-300k) features that looked good but were unable to secure certain avenues of distribution because they shot 24 in 60i and then failed to do their pulldown before editing. Their audio wasn't an issue but their visuals won't pass certain major distributors QC process without a time consuming (and therefore expensive) shot-by-shot fix.

I'm sure there are quite a few examples of failed QC due to errors with the visuals. However, the vast majority of QC technical failures are due to problems with the audio.

I'm sure it would be entirely possible to deliver audio that meets the technical requirements but sounds bad.

Absolutely it is! Tech specs can be difficult to meet but tech specs do not indicate whether a mix is good or bad. Good (or bad) is an aesthetic value judgement which is not something which can be (or is) quantified or defined in QC tech specs. What filmmakers have to understand of course, is that no matter how good the audio sounds, if it doesn't comply with QC specs it's not going to be distributed or broadcast!

Public Enemies is a film that comes to mind, I remember being shocked that the audio mix was as bad as it was considering I was watching it in a commercial theater - but it clearly passed all the technical requirements.

Public Enemies is, for a big budget theatrical feature, IMHO a clusterf*ck of a mix, one of the worst I've heard in the digital age! Just goes to show that even hiring some of the best in the business is no absolute guarantee of a great mix.

Something very strange happened on that show though, from coded messages in public interviews I have an idea what possibly went on. Theatrical audio QC is largely regulated by the licensed audio post facilities themselves, which have to meet strict guidelines in their construction, equipping and operation. There is an obvious conflict of interest here though, because it's the film directors and producers who choose, employ and pay the audio post facility and therefore the re-recording mixers have to ultimately follow the client's demands. Having said this, I very much doubt that a smaller film with lesser stars and a less respected director would have been allowed "out the door" by the re-recording mixers.

G

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

No I didn't, you brought up recording production dialogue, this is what I actually said originally:

"What's interesting is in the case of poor sound/sound design, the answer I most commonly hear on IT is something along the lines of; "of course I'd like better sound but we didn't have the budget", "as amateurs/no budget indie filmmakers we've got to learn to do the best with what we've got", etc."

And you accused me of not reading properly and of being "obtuse", tsk!

Exactly. I'm the one who brought up recording production dialogue because your original comparison - between discussions of the broader topic of sound design and the recommendations to allocate budget to a zoom lens in this thread - was incorrect. That's why I gave the analogy I did - to illustrate what a more appropriate comparison would be.

Public Enemies is, for a big budget theatrical feature, IMHO a clusterf*ck of a mix, one of the worst I've heard in the digital age! Just goes to show that even hiring some of the best in the business is no absolute guarantee of a great mix.

Something very strange happened on that show though, from coded messages in public interviews I have an idea what possibly went on [...]

It's funny, because one of the most frequently cited examples I've seen of audio phase issues is an episode of Miami Vice (also a Michael Mann production) which accidentally got broadcast with the stereo channels out of phase with one another. The stereo music was mostly audible, the dialogue was low, and sound effects like gunshots were essentially canceled out almost entirely. I'm sure it was coincidence (the MV issue had to have been introduced downstream of the mixing stage where Mann would have been reviewing it) but it's funny that he's got a couple of high profile examples of audio issues in his career.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I'm the one who brought up recording production dialogue because your original comparison - between discussions of the broader topic of sound design and the recommendations to allocate budget to a zoom lens in this thread - was incorrect.

What makes you think my comparison was incorrect?

I'm sure it was coincidence (the MV issue had to have been introduced downstream of the mixing stage where Mann would have been reviewing it) but it's funny that he's got a couple of high profile examples of audio issues in his career.

In the TV world, QC is handled independently of the audio post facility or re-recording mixer/s. If it was a phase issue as you describe, it would have failed QC and therefore must have been a downstream issue. Normally I would leave my comment at that but according to the insider gossip I've heard, in this particular case it's a possibility that it was a deliberate mix decision rather than a phase issue. If that was the case, a producer or director can challenge a QC failure on artistic grounds (providing there are no actual phase issues).

G

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

What makes you think my comparison was incorrect?

I've explained that in nearly every response I've posted here. But I'll try one last time: you compared IT responses to the broad topic of achieving professional level sound quality to the responses in this thread, which were not at all related to the similarly broad topic of achieving professional level cinematography. You're comparing two different things, and therefor your implication - that IT tends to prioritize visuals while ignoring audio - is not supported by the comparison.

The suggestions regarding lenses in this thread are on a level much more akin to recommending someone needs a boom & mic for dialogue recording rather than a camera-mounted mic, which is something that's regularly recommended around here. Therefor I feel the responses in this thread are entirely consistent with the typical responses IT provides when questions of minimal viable equipment arise for production audio.

Normally I would leave my comment at that but according to the insider gossip I've heard, in this particular case it's a possibility that it was a deliberate mix decision rather than a phase issue. If that was the case, a producer or director can challenge a QC failure on artistic grounds (providing there are no actual phase issues).

It would be interesting to know the thought process behind a decision like that - I couldn't see any apparent creative/artistic reason for wanting the sound to come out like it did. The film has some odd choices on the cinematography side as well, it's hard to tell if they were made deliberately or were merely the side effects of pushing the available technology to it's limits in pursuit of a particular aesthetic. Mann had shot Miami Vice three years earlier (and parts of Collateral two years prior to that) with similar equipment though and it didn't exhibit the same issues, so I have a feeling it was deliberate and I can understand the argument for why he would make those choices. I just can't imagine a similar argument for the poor sound mix.

UPDATE: I actually started poking around online and found this interesting article about the sound process on the film which pretty well makes the argument that the end result was exactly what Mann intended:

http://mixonline.com/post/features/audio_public_enemies/

Honestly it sounds like the process was something of a nightmare, considering things like this: 'the way Mann likes to film a scene, which Waddell says involves “shooting every angle at the same time — close-ups, wide shots…So [Novick] had radio mics on everyone, booms, all kinds of mics where he could, just so he could cover everything.”' and '“He gets into changing levels half a dB, a tenth of a dB, and he gets into syllables,” says effects re-recording mixer Beau Borders. “If the line is, ‘Let's go!’ he might say, ‘Raise the attack of the “g” on “go,” but leave the “o” exactly where it is, and on “Let's,” I want you to do a rise on the “s.”'

The odd thing about it is I've seen most of Mann's work multiple times, and that's the only one where I felt it simply sounded bad overall.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

...you compared IT responses to the broad topic of achieving professional level sound quality to the responses in this thread, which were not at all related to the similarly broad topic of achieving professional level cinematography.

Firstly, I'm not talking about achieving pro sound quality, I'm talking about trying to get away from average home movie quality by moving towards pro quality. Secondly, I saw this thread as using the minimum right (albeit not entirely of pro quality) cinematography tools for the task. The budget needs to be found for a zoom lens otherwise the OP is out of luck. My comparison is that the right tools (albeit not entirely of pro quality) for the job are also required in audio post but that is extremely rare as far as lo/no budget filmmakers are concerned.

The suggestions regarding lenses in this thread are on a level much more akin to recommending someone needs a boom & mic for dialogue recording rather than a camera-mounted mic, which is something that's regularly recommended around here.

A specific production sound analogy can work as well, I'd just put it differently. A half decent (not pro quality) boom + mic is an essential basic, like a half decent camera lens is. The OP already has a half decent lens, just one not suited to this particular task. The equivalent production sound comparison would be the need to have additional half decent mics; shotgun for outdoors, hypercardioid for indoors, a couple of lavs and of course, someone who's got at least a half decent idea of how to use them.

It would be interesting to know the thought process behind a decision like that - I couldn't see any apparent creative/artistic reason for wanting the sound to come out like it did.

There's two unrelated pieces of information about Mann which added together may provide the reason. 1. He has the reputation of being a perfectionist and additionally of having a fierce and exceptionally dictatorial style of directing. 2. He apparently has a quite severe hearing impairment, which necessitates the use of hearing aids.

Either one of these can be overcome but both together is going to be a problem! The article you quoted is one of the interviews I alluded to as having coded messages. A re-recording mixer, even one with O'Connell's experience/reputation, cannot afford to alienate a director of Mann's standing, hence the need for coded messages. It's entirely common in my experience that directors "get into" the syllables of words during the dialogue pre-mix, although not every single syllable. What's telling though is that directors never (again in my experience) instruct specific dB changes and most don't even know what a dB is. If they did know what a dB was they certainly wouldn't ask for a change of half a dB because that's inaudible and the article states Mann was also asking for changes of a tenth of a dB?! To the casual reader that would just appear to be attention to very fine detail but to an audio post pro it says that Mann is going well beyond fine detail and into the realm of placebo effect and expectation bias, an expensive and counter-productive realm to enter!

There are other statements, such as: "... this is the first movie I've ever mixed without premixing the dialog first. Michael likes to work from the raw dialog tracks and use as little — if any — processing for the mix.”. Regarding the first sentence; there are very good reasons why the DX pre-mix needs to be done first and all films are made that way not because it's tradition but because you get a better end result. The coded message is that not doing the DX pre-mix first indicates either severe ignorance of the mixing phase of audio post or an over-confident director making conscious decisions based on some bizarre/misguided logic. The second sentence is also very telling because it's an axiom of mixing (and therefore goes without saying), that everyone wants to work from raw DX tracks and use as little processing as possible. The alternatives (ADR and DX processing) are time consuming, expensive and degrade the audio signal, performance or both. The reason that ADR and DX processing are always employed is because the damage they cause is less than the improvement they make. The coded message here is that Mann specifically did not allow the audio post team to employ the DX processing and ADR they deemed necessary.

What's strange about all this is why just Public Enemies? To be honest, I didn't think Collateral was very good (by big budget film mix standards) and Miami Vice could also have been better but certainly neither were in the category of "appalling" like Public Enemies and Last of the Mohicans and Heat were fine mixes. Maybe Mann's hearing is deteriorating further and he is refusing to recognise/accept it? In which case, someone higher up the food chain is going to have to appoint an overseer or convince him to start listening to the advice of his audio post team. Neither option sounds like something Mann would willingly accept though. Sooner or later he'll have to do something or he'll find himself unemployable, there were a lot of complaints and a significant number of walk outs because of the sound of Public Enemies. Cinemas/distributors/financiers won't tolerate that for long, no matter how "big" the director. It'll be interesting to hear the mix of Blackhat.

G