The Hurt Locker, MIB wins Oscars!!!

[cjguitar]

The Hurt Locker was mixed completely in the box (Pro Tools) with no large format consoles and big name mixers involved. In fact, it was all mixed in the smaller mix/sound design stages at Sony, none of the big rooms involved, except for maybe a playback.

I may be wrong, but I believe that this is the first film MIB that has won the Academy Award!!! That's an amazing accomplishment, and really says something about how far Pro Tools has really come up to this point.

There's still a lot of resistance in the industry against mixing in Pro Tools, but hopefully this will make it less of an issue for producers/directors considering doing a mix at dub stages that don't use million dollar consoles, and have a huge staff just to keep things running. What do you all think about this?

[JSt0rm]

I think overall its a good thing. I'm still reserved as I thought avatar sounded better then hurt locker in the "hollywood explosion design department" (not taking anything away from the team some great work there). I think we will of made it when a movie like Avatar is mixed on protools.

I think half of it is summing in the box tbh. If we had a summing mixer for post that took 6 5.1 stems and mixed it down and back into the box with multiple outputs so you derive all stems at one point it would be sweet and put us close in quality. I once sent a email to martin sound asking them about it. I got total silence from the other side so maybe they are working on it ee

[dr.sound]

Since I know all the guys who worked on it (including Chris Jacobson)
and since we did the Dolby PrintMaster of reels 1-5 at "The Dub Stage" I can tell you first hand it was a very nice mix.
Congratulations to Paul Ottosson and the whole Sound Team.
Also Congratulations to Bob Murawski and Chris Innis who were the Picture Editors on "The Hurt locker" who both won Oscars for their work.
They both work at "The Dub Stage " on their movies.

[Emmanuel]

Congratulations, Chris and the rest of the sound team. I found this video link of Kathryn Bigelow in the mix room with Paul Ottosson. It's a video piece for USA Network, I thought the setting would be of interest to the members of this site. Character Approved: Kathryn Bigelow on Vimeo

[Henchman]

All that "summing bus" stuff is a load of mumbo jumbo nonsense.
One can get as good a mix ITB as you can on the million dollar large format consoles.
The stuff I do ITB sounds as good as the stuff I did on a Euphonix System 5.
In fact, I have done my best sounding stuff ITB

And personally, I prefer mixing ITB.
I can get more done in the same amount of time mixing ITB. Which basically means, a better mix for the same amount of money.
And when there are picture changes, they're much easier to deal with.

[santacore]

I think it's a big accomplishment. By the way-nice work Chris.

Although I not fully convinced it's the best sonically, I'm a huge fan of MIB. I personally have no desire to mix any other way. Speed, flexibility, size, and system/maintenance costs are just some of the main reasons.

[Jfriah]

Been ITB for 10 years now. Can't imagine going "old school" anymore. That is a great story because SO much of it all is based on perceptions.

"where is your three man $$$$$$$$$$ console?! I can't mix here!"

So glad to hear "a recognized movie" was done this way. It ain't the gear. It ain't the money and overhead spent on the gear. It is the team and the talent and creativity (and flexibility to let them do their thing because that's what they are good at.)

But ok guys, how "completely in the box"? Are there control surfaces at all or just mouse and keyboard?

Gotta know.

Jeff

[Teddy Ray]

Originally Posted by Henchman

All that "summing bus" stuff is a load of mumbo jumbo nonsense.
One can get as good a mix ITB as you can on the million dollar large format consoles.
The stuff I do ITB sounds as good as the stuff I did on a Euphonix System 5.
In fact, I have done my best sounding stuff ITB

And personally, I prefer mixing ITB.
I can get more done in the same amount of time mixing ITB. Which basically means, a better mix for the same amount of money.
And when there are picture changes, they're much easier to deal with.

hey, BTW.. I love Fringe! (Think I Saw you in the credits/?)

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by Jfriah

Been ITB for 10 years now. Can't imagine going "old school" anymore. That is a great story because SO much of it all is based on perceptions.

"where is your three man $$$$$$$$$$ console?! I can't mix here!"

But ok guys, how "completely in the box"? Are there control surfaces at all or just mouse and keyboard?

Gotta know.

Jeff

Definitely a control surface.

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by Teddy Ray

hey, BTW.. I love Fringe! (Think I Saw you in the credits/?)

Yep.
Thanks.

[ggegan]

I am really happy about these Oscars, not only because they were well deserved, but also because it speaks truth to the Luddite elites who are doing everything in their power to hold back progress. I hear so much misinformation and disinformation about ICONs and other PT based mixing platforms coming from people in the industry who don't know what they are talking about. It is generated by certain A list mixers who are either intimidated by the prospect of having to learn a different system or are desperately trying to protect their jobs from sound editors who want to mix.

Even though I am an FX mixer who has lost a number of jobs in the past few years to sound editors who decide to mix their own FX tracks on PT systems (they generally don't attempt to tackle dialogue mixing), I believe that trying to discourage this is both futile and wrong headed. There is no reason an editor can't do a great mix, as proven by people like Rydstrom, Thom, Lievsay, Nettinga, Mangini, Ottosson and many others. If mixers feel threatened by it, maybe they should start editing as I have. Let the cream rise to the top.

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by ggegan

I am really happy about these Oscars, not only because they were well deserved, but also because it speaks truth to the Luddite elites who are doing everything in their power to hold back progress. I hear so much misinformation and disinformation about ICONs and other PT based mixing platforms coming from people in the industry who don't know what they are talking about. It is generated by certain A list mixers who are either intimidated by the prospect of having to learn a different system or are desperately trying to protect their jobs from sound editors who want to mix.

Even though I am an FX mixer who has lost a number of jobs in the past few years to sound editors who decide to mix their own FX tracks on PT systems (they generally don't attempt to tackle dialogue mixing), I believe that trying to discourage this is both futile and wrong headed. There is no reason an editor can't do a great mix, as proven by people like Rydstrom, Thom, Lievsay, Nettinga, Mangini, Ottosson and many others. If mixers feel threatened by it, maybe they should start editing as I have. Let the cream rise to the top.

I totally agree.

[cinealta]

Originally Posted by Henchman

The stuff I do ITB sounds as good as the stuff I did on a Euphonix System 5.

Euphonix System 5 is ITB. It is just using the digital algorithms in the Euphonix DSP Supercore vs a Mac running a DAW's algorithms, or a PCI card with SHARC chips running Pro Tools algos. Nonetheless, they are all ITB.

ICON & System 5MC are just control surfaces, and thus are also ITB.

Originally Posted by cjguitar

There's still a lot of resistance in the industry against mixing in Pro Tools, but hopefully this will make it less of an issue for producers/directors considering doing a mix at dub stages that don't use million dollar consoles, and have a huge staff just to keep things running. What do you all think about this?

The Hurt Locker was a good film with a good mix. The script & story is what made it great. I don't think anyone is praising it for its production value. You could have shot that thing, in just as compelling a manner, on HD video and blown it up.

Bigelow had an $11 million budget. Her gear was constrained by her budget. No one should compare something shot on an Aaton 16mm, and mixed on an ancient Pro Control, with features shot in 35mm Panavision and mixed on a Neve DFC Gemini. There is no comparison. If Bigelow had a bigger budget, she would have used better gear.

[iluvcapra]

Originally Posted by cinealta

Euphonix System 5 is ITB. It is just using the digital algorithms in the Euphonix DSP Supercore vs a Mac running a DAW's algorithms, or a PCI card with SHARC chips running Pro Tools algos. Nonetheless, they are all ITB.

The conventional definition of "The Box" would probably be a system where the tracks and the channels, the dummies and the faders and the busses, all live on the same CPU -- a System 5 can neither play nor record from mass storage. Any other application of the term would deprive it of all meaning at this point, since there are no mainstream post-production conoles that don't use an all-digital surface + frame.

Originally Posted by cinealta

Bigelow had an $11 million budget. Her gear was constrained by her budget. No one should compare something shot on an Aaton 16mm, and mixed on an ancient Pro Control, with features shot in 35mm Panavision and mixed on a Neve DFC Gemini. There is no comparison. If Bigelow had a bigger budget, she would have used better gear.

I dunno; I happen to be privy to some parts of this process, and I am aware that she was really happy with the workflow, and she wants to do all of her films in a small room with a Pro Control from now on -- I don't think she cares so much about the brand of the console, it was really about not being under time pressure, and having the mixer be the same two hands that cut all the FX.

I am not aware of the precise reasons for going with 16mm, but I know size and ruggedness were definitely important, and I don't think you could have squeezed a CineAlta, or a RED into the trunk of the burning car at UN Headquarters to get the reverse shot onto James.. and if they had, we would have had to notch out the REDs friggin FAN NOISE. I doubt any digital camera system could have operated reliably in the +100 degree weather. The camera was shot handheld with shaky cameras, and I know for a fact operating a Genesis and other digital cameras like that produces tons of motion artifacts.

16mm on Fujifilm also looks grainy and like a documentary, and has a decidedly different visual tone than digital hi-def cameras-- a low key, glossy quality that has become the hallmark of the low-budget TV series and cable MOW.

I'm not sure what you mean by "there is no comparison."

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by cinealta

No one should compare something shot on an Aaton 16mm, and mixed on an ancient Pro Control, with features shot in 35mm Panavision and mixed on a Neve DFC Gemini.

Except that's exactly what it was compared to with the Oscars, and won.

The idea that one needs a million dollar console today, to do a great sounding mix, is so 1999.
And if you know my history, you would know that of all people, I was a HUGE opponent of Pro-Tools, until the last few years when it finally became a more than useable format for TV and Film, and not just 3 1/2 min pop songs.
So, I'm no Digi Fanboy.

I have heard enough big budget movies and TV shows, that have been mixed on large, multi-million dollar consoles, on large dub stages, that sound like absolute dog crap.
And quite frankly, I have mixed reality TV shows that sound better.

And as a mixer I know for a fact that it's the talent and time behind the console, that determines the quality of the mix.

Mrs. Bigelow was smart to not blow her budget on a big stage, which would have given her less time, yet instead spent more time on a smaller stage.
And time and talent make a good mix, not the size of the stage and console.

I have seen a couple of the films that Marti Humphrey has done, in theaters, and they sound great. No compromise. And there are enough mixers mixing on Icons and Pro-Controls who are getting excellent results.

And remember, at the end of the day, a Neve Gemini is just a control surface with DSP as well.

[ggegan]

Originally Posted by Henchman

Mrs. Bigelow was smart to not blow her budget on a big stage, which would have given her less time, yet instead spent more time on a smaller stage.
And time and talent make a good mix, not the size of the stage and console.

This is totally on the money.

The two most important factors that determine how good of a mix I can do are the flexibility inherent in the system and how much time I get to devote to optimizing the mix.

Time equals creativity, because if I don't have enough time, I just have to go for what I already know will work, but I don't have the option of exploring new ideas. The flexibility and efficiency of the system I work on allow me to make the most of the time I am given.

Anyone can claim that one system sounds better than another, but that's subjective opinion, not objective fact. As far as I'm concerned, that is a moot point. If I don't have the time I need, it doesn't matter how good the system supposedly sounds, I won't be able to devote enough of my creative attention to making the sound track sound the way I want it to be.

This is why I love mixing ITB. I have ultimate flexibility and the options I need to work much more efficiently than I can on a traditional platform, so I have more time to be creative. That means I can play and experiment, plus I have so many more of the tools I need to realize whatever my creativity demands.

And for the record, mixing on a Euphonix, DFC or MPC is not mixing ITB. The architecture may have some superficial similarities in terms of the use of digital subroutines to process sound, but the user interface is not at all similar. They are conventional consoles with enhanced automation, but without the higher levels of discrete control found in true ITB systems.

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by ggegan

This is why I love mixing ITB. I have ultimate flexibility and the options I need to work much more efficiently than I can on a traditional platform, so I have more time to be creative. That means I can play and experiment, plus I have so many more of the tools I need to realize whatever my creativity demands.

And we won't even talk about what a non-issue picture changes really are when mixing ITB, compared to the traditional way of working.

[ggegan]

Originally Posted by Henchman

And we won't even talk about what a non-issue picture changes really are when mixing ITB, compared to the traditional way of working.

Word!

[Jfriah]

What a great thread. Thanks for this, folks.

And you hit it on the head about some clients and some current mixers being... 'concerned' about using/not using big expensive "coffee tables" as some have referred to them.

Learning curve is certainly one thing. I used to work with a hardcore 'fader rider' (Oscar-nominated) who finally made the switch to a P.T. control surface way of mixing. Many people fear change (especially those who have spent millions on consoles that work 'just fine the way they are') but when you have the control these systems offer...

I'm an mixer/editor who does everything within Pro Tools and that's keyboard and mouse (trackball...) because we edit/pre-mix/mix in a very 'blended process' because we're a smaller place. Would love to move to a control surface someday for mixing but not in future plans at this point.

Jeff

[dr.sound]

Originally Posted by cinealta

Euphonix System 5 is ITB. It is just using the digital algorithms in the Euphonix DSP Supercore vs a Mac running a DAW's algorithms, or a PCI card with SHARC chips running Pro Tools algos. Nonetheless, they are all ITB.

ICON & System 5MC are just control surfaces, and thus are also ITB.



The Hurt Locker was a good film with a good mix. The script & story is what made it great. I don't think anyone is praising it for its production value. You could have shot that thing, in just as compelling a manner, on HD video and blown it up.

Bigelow had an $11 million budget. Her gear was constrained by her budget. No one should compare something shot on an Aaton 16mm, and mixed on an ancient Pro Control, with features shot in 35mm Panavision and mixed on a Neve DFC Gemini. There is no comparison. If Bigelow had a bigger budget, she would have used better gear.

You are so far from the mark...
First off the Euphonix System 5 is NOT Mixing In The Box!
All of your reverbs are outboard, most non automated.
You can't conform automation for everything the way you can Mixing in Pro Tools.

Second, while the DFC is a good sounding console, it is a beast that has to have a full time tech standing by when it fails. Note, it fails. Automation can be very buggy.

I posted here before stating I have had 5 1/2 hours of downtime in 5 years.Show me a DFC that can say that?

Neve doesn't even have a support office here in Hollywood.

Budgets are going one way and that is down.
Good luck buying a million dollar console in this marketplace.

As for Production value, "The Hurt Locker" wasn't full of millions of dollars of CGI etc. The reason it works is the story sucks you in.
It sounds very good to me. I know, I heard it on my own stage doing the Dolby Print Master.
Oh and by the way, have you checked in on Panavision lately?
Creditors set to gain Panavision - Los Angeles Times

[Kuba_Pietrzak]

Originally Posted by Henchman

I have seen a couple of the films that Marti Humphrey has done, in theaters, and they sound great. No compromise. And there are enough mixers mixing on Icons and Pro-Controls who are getting excellent results.

And remember, at the end of the day, a Neve Gemini is just a control surface with DSP as well.

I wrote a similar statement in DUC...

When I saw (and heard) "Exorcism on Emily Rose" for the 1st time, I realized, that it is possible to do a great sounding mix inside the ProTools. And it is only about talent, skills and experience.

And as this was several years ago, I used this example as the strong point during discussion with my friends about the mix-in-the-box sound quality. This was not obvious for everybody at that time, that it is possible without DFC or other similar board.

The revolution in the mixing environment has begun, when PT|HD came out. I mixed for Tv using old PT III 16-voices hardware, d24 hardware and PT|Mix with many cards in chassis. The more tracks and plug-ins was used, the worse sound had become. Not to mention the 64-voices mixer, which was actually 32+32 with truncation.

So, comparing those Mix hardware with DFC for example was something really different, than comparing well configured HD7 with board like DFC or Euphonix.

regards,
Kuba

[charles maynes]

I am wondering if the whole prejudice against PT/ITB mixing is not so much about the technology and moreso about the other associated compromises that go with it- IE, Marti has a very nice sounding, properly configured mix stage vs someone mixing in an editorial, or design room. It really comes down to the organic matter sitting between the ears of the people mixing, and Marti, Chris and Paul (amoungst many others) have the smarts and experience to put together a great sounding mix.

The Directors and Producers we all work with like doing this in properly appointed rooms, so if THAT more expensive property is taken care of, I would strongly argue that a good sounding mix is possible without even a control surface, given that the mixer is comfortable with what he is hearing, and the time that is required to make the magic happen.

In general, i am aligned with Randy Thom's mission of emphasizing talent over technology, and I personally feel that our livelihood depends on us selling our judgement and experience as well as our creativity, over a fancy snapshot of a bunch of gear.

call me old fashioned I guess.

[cinealta]

Originally Posted by iluvcapra

The conventional definition of "The Box" would probably be a system where the tracks and the channels, the dummies and the faders and the busses, all live on the same CPU -- a System 5 can neither play nor record from mass storage. Any other application of the term would deprive it of all meaning at this point, since there are no mainstream post-production conoles that don't use an all-digital surface + frame.

Originally Posted by Henchman

And remember, at the end of the day, a Neve Gemini is just a control surface with DSP as well.

Originally Posted by ggegan

And for the record, mixing on a Euphonix, DFC or MPC is not mixing ITB. The architecture may have some superficial similarities in terms of the use of digital subroutines to process sound, but the user interface is not at all similar. They are conventional consoles with enhanced automation, but without the higher levels of discrete control found in true ITB systems.

Originally Posted by dr.sound

First off the Euphonix System 5 is NOT Mixing In The Box!
All of your reverbs are outboard, most non automated.
You can't conform automation for everything the way you can Mixing in Pro Tools.

Of course the System 5 is a traditional LFDC (as far as workflow). I was responding to Henchman's observation that ITB "SOUNDS" as good as a System 5 (see below).

Originally Posted by Henchman

The stuff I do ITB sounds as good as the stuff I did on a Euphonix System 5.

I should have clarified my post to state that the System 5's digital summing and EQ algorithms are functionally "ITB" (ie, digital algos running on Euphonix's DSP Supercore), as opposed to stages with digitally-controlled analog boards (eg Harrison Series 12, Euphonix CS3000 etc).

[Henchman]

a bad carpenter blames his tools

[Henchman]

I really think that with where the budgets are going, instead of cutting wages and time, the thing the large studio's should be looking at smaller stages where the main mix is done. Then move to a larger stage to check the mix and printmaster.

I find that even most of the TV dubstages are too big, for the budgets
Quite frankly, I don't think it's very smart putting in million dollar consoles on
TV subject stages. It makes absolutely no sense from a business point of view.

[cinealta]

Originally Posted by Henchman

And as a mixer I know for a fact that it's the talent and time behind the console, that determines the quality of the mix.

Agreed, this is important.

Originally Posted by iluvcapra

I am not aware of the precise reasons for going with 16mm, but I know size and ruggedness were definitely important, and I don't think you could have squeezed a CineAlta, or a RED into the trunk of the burning car at UN Headquarters to get the reverse shot onto James.. and if they had, we would have had to notch out the REDs friggin FAN NOISE. I doubt any digital camera system could have operated reliably in the +100 degree weather.

Probably a variety of reasons. Kathryn was shooting 100:1 with 4 cameras (16mm cameras & film are cheap). Amman was 115 degrees for 45 days in a row. HD cameras would have malfunctioned even packed with ice. 16mm lent itself to a "documentary" look and feel. True, RED is noisy (so are some film cameras though).

Originally Posted by iluvcapra

I'm not sure what you mean by "there is no comparison."

Maybe it's just me. I'm sure Pro Tools ITB mixed on a MacBook sounds fine for reality cable with sound recorded on a DVX100, coming out of a 2 inch mono full-range TV speaker. Would Pro Tools ITB hold up against something mixed on a Harrison MPC4-D, Neve DFC or Euphonix System 5, in a theater with greater than THX standards? I humbly and respectfully do not believe so.

Sound mixing was an art, an intricate live performance of deft hands, creative minds and skillful coordination. Now it has been reduced to clicking a mouse button. There is no bold committing to a move. Endless undos, and insecure massaging to perfection, do not necessarily create the best end result.

Imagine if innovators, like John Aalberg, had chose the least expensive/convenient workflow? We would not have had the clarity and fidelity of Jimmy Stewart's dialogue etc.

[charles maynes]

It makes for an interesting situation Mark- the Studios are happy to bill out huge dollars for their stages, even if they are inappropriate for the tasks at hand.... Most theatres are not even the size of the the big rooms at Universal or Disney....

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by cinealta

Agreed, this is important.



Probably a variety of reasons. Kathryn was shooting 100:1 with 4 cameras (16mm cameras & film are cheap). Amman was 115 degrees for 45 days in a row. HD cameras would have malfunctioned even packed with ice. 16mm lent itself to a "documentary" look and feel. True, RED is noisy (so are some film cameras though).



Maybe it's just me. I'm sure Pro Tools ITB mixed on a MacBook sounds fine for reality cable with sound recorded on a DVX100, coming out of a 2 inch mono full-range TV speaker. Would Pro Tools ITB hold up against something mixed on a Harrison MPC4-D, Neve DFC or Euphonix System 5, in a theater with greater than THX standards? I humbly and respectfully do not believe so.

Sound mixing was an art, an intricate live performance of deft hands, creative minds and skillful coordination. Now it has been reduced to clicking a mouse button. There is no bold committing to a move. Endless undos, and insecure massaging to perfection, do not necessarily create the best end result.

Imagine if innovators, like John Aalberg, had chose the least expensive/convenient workflow? We would not have had the clarity and fidelity of Jimmy Stewart's dialogue etc.

Sound mixing was an art, an intricate live performance of deft hands, creative minds and skillful coordination. Now it has been reduced to clicking a mouse button. There is no bold committing to a move. Endless undos, and insecure massaging to perfection, do not necessarily create the best end result.

Maybe you should that comment to the sound branch governors.... I am sure they would appreciate it.


Hurt Locker, to my ears sounded good enough- and the Academy voters agreed as well. Many of whom have received Academy Awards for their own sound work. No one mixes on analog anymore, so all the mixes were "In the Box" to one degree or another. To say using a Macbook is how that is coming about is somewhat exaggerating things as most stages now are using a digital console between PT systems anyway. The quality an EQ or a reverb is not going to really make or break a mix if the person using them has a minimal level of skill in operating them.

Also HL beat out films mixed on the System5 (Inglorious Basterds), Harrison (TransformersII) and the AMS/NEVE DFC (Avatar & StarTrek) with a budget that was probably less than one fifth of its competition.




And as to changes etc- that has been an argument since automation came onto the scene.

[Henchman]

The gear being used doesn't make the job any less artful.
Mixing sound is still an art.
And thinking that because something is mixed ITB automatically means it's inferior I think is pretty condescending.
The fact a movie mixed ITB won and Oscar, shows how wrong you are.

And I'm proud to add that a movie I mixed ITB, with a very low budget and a 9
day dub for pre-dub and final, was nominated this year for any MPSE award, next to the big budget movies.

And it played very nicely in theaters.
I know I couldn't have done the detailed work on the dialog this film needed, in the same time on a standard console.

[cinealta]

Originally Posted by cinealta

The Hurt Locker was a good film with a good mix.

Originally Posted by Henchman

And thinking that because something is mixed ITB automatically means it's inferior I think is pretty condescending.

The fact a movie mixed ITB won and Oscar, shows how wrong you are.

I praised the Hurt Locker's mix (see above).

Originally Posted by cinealta

Would Pro Tools ITB hold up against something mixed on a Harrison MPC4-D, Neve DFC or Euphonix System 5, in a theater with greater than THX standards? I humbly and respectfully do not believe so.

I, humbly and respectfully, stated that IMO, ITB mixes are not quite there yet, in comparison to LFDC mixes. I went out of my way to be polite and courteous and no where did I intend to be condescending.