Location recording for film

[Nick Name]

I mostly work on musical projects but 3 years ago i found myself doing all the sound for an indie film after i finished recording school.

The whole thing was shot using one audio technica shootgun mic going into my mbox, straight to PT LE. The movie was mostly shot outdoors, and even though the end result turned out great, I had quite a bit of noise to deal with, specially once I started compressing/limiting the audio. The whole thing was a moderate success, but it took a ridiculous amount of work to get it there.

Well, in a couple of months, after the success of the first one, the team will be preparing for bigger and better. With something of a budget this time (enough to rent some nice stuff for 2 weeks of shooting, but nothing excessive), I wanted to know what people would recommend as the best way to go about location recording. Obviously the mbox didn't give me the smoothest/warmest results (pre amps are such a big deal in music, I can only imagine it'd be the same for dialog). What's the more practical/better sounding approach?

Also, is it common to use both body mics and boom mics and then mix them together for better rounded results. Any general thoughts on your experiences with successful location audio would be appreciated.

Cheers.

[philper]

Originally Posted by Nick Name

I mostly work on musical projects but 3 years ago i found myself doing all the sound for an indie film after i finished recording school.

The whole thing was shot using one audio technica shootgun mic going into my mbox, straight to PT LE. The movie was mostly shot outdoors, and even though the end result turned out great, I had quite a bit of noise to deal with, specially once I started compressing/limiting the audio. The whole thing was a moderate success, but it took a ridiculous amount of work to get it there.

Well, in a couple of months, after the success of the first one, the team will be preparing for bigger and better. With something of a budget this time (enough to rent some nice stuff for 2 weeks of shooting, but nothing excessive), I wanted to know what people would recommend as the best way to go about location recording. Obviously the mbox didn't give me the smoothest/warmest results (pre amps are such a big deal in music, I can only imagine it'd be the same for dialog). What's the more practical/better sounding approach?

Also, is it common to use both body mics and boom mics and then mix them together for better rounded results. Any general thoughts on your experiences with successful location audio would be appreciated.

Cheers.

Actually, preamps aren't such a big deal (above a certain level) in film sound location recording. Location audio is the acquisition phase of a whole chain of work and people involved in making the soundtrack, there is practically no use of mic pres as "flavors" in location sound. What is generally wanted is clean, clear recordings of the actors voices, well documented and organized. If you will be working as a one-man-band and booming the shots yourself I'd recommend a doco style "bag-rig", with a mixer, a recorder and space for wireless receivers etc.. Many of us use small portable mixers and recorders made by Sound Devices for this kind of work. If you are going to rent the gear, check out the rental sections of film-centric audio dealers like Coffey Sound, Trew Audio, Location Sound Corp, Gotham Audio, etc--they will help you assemble a package that can meet your needs. There are two other forums that are specifically about film/video location audio that you should check out: JWSound.com and RAMPS.

The best advice I can give you about mixing the audio from lavs and boom mics (on the same actor or group of actors) is to tell you to get some gear and try it out for yourself.
(Sometimes it works, many times it sounds bad.)

good luck

Philip Perkins

[dr.sound]

Nick,
Here is a link to RAMPS:
Discussions - rec.arts.movies.production.sound | Google Groups

[tsvisser]

Originally Posted by philper

Actually, preamps aren't such a big deal (above a certain level) in film sound location recording.

...and there you have it in a nutshell... making sure to note the "(above a certain level)" caveat. MBOX definitely not meeting that criteria, by the way. You need clean gain. When close mic'ing cabs and instruments in the studio, you get so much acoustic signal to room noise levels, that absolute signal to noise ratio of the preamp isn't often that important. Even with a nice shotgun, often times you will find you mic is a few feet away from the sound source, which is a potentially soft spoken actor, not nice loud and clear musical instrument.

If your going to do this a lot, invest in a Sound Devices 302. It is not too expensive and has everything that you need to quickly get clean sound in a small battery operated chassis. In addition to preamp performance, the ability to correctly monitor and calibrate levels are just as important (if not more so). If you don't use a purpose built production tool, sure you can use a studio preamp, but I think that you'll find that more professional productions won't have the patience to deal with someone using something like a tethered MBOX and their computer or willing to experiment with tried and true industry standard techniques.

Getting Philip to answer this question is akin to Stephen Hawkings to show up to a trigonometry course and answering a question about tangential lines - speaking of tangential lines...

[danijel]

Originally Posted by philper

Actually, preamps aren't such a big deal (above a certain level) in film sound location recording. Location audio is the acquisition phase of a whole chain of work and people involved in making the soundtrack, .....

To expand (and fantasize on) this statement - there is a great probability that you will get much cleaner dialogue if you participate in deciding on shooting locations and asking the wardrobe people to make holes where needed (for lavs) and insist on changing a particularly nasty dress with another one and then record through a Behringer mixer into an old PC with Sound Blaster AWE64, then by bumping onto location 15 minutes before the action is called and recording through SSL and Mytek

[Nick Name]

Guys, thanks for all the feedback. Much appreciated. I definitively wouldn't endorse the mbox approach at any capacity! (although I have to be grateful. It did get me through my first job) . Gain noise was indeed an issue.

I'll be looking at the forum link and researching a bit more to find what suits the film's needs best, but everything mentioned here will be taken into account. It seems as though this is something I might find myself doing more often than planned, so I'm probably gonna look into possibly purchasing a basic but solid setup.

Cheers

[Nick Name]

Originally Posted by danijel

To expand (and fantasize on) this statement - there is a great probability that you will get much cleaner dialogue if you participate in deciding on shooting locations and asking the wardrobe people to make holes where needed (for lavs) and insist on changing a particularly nasty dress with another one and then record through a Behringer mixer into an old PC with Sound Blaster AWE64, then by bumping onto location 15 minutes before the action is called and recording through SSL and Mytek

You can say that again! That first filmed was shot out in the desert in Alberta, Canada. The picked a beautiful location....just by the highway

[Nick Name]

As i'm looking into some of the suggested recorders/mixers, a question keeps popping up. If a digital recorder such as the 744 has its own set of preamps, level control, etc. Where does the mixer come in the chain and for what purpose??

I'm I missing a point by thinking that a 744, a pair of headphones and a proper mic/mics is all I need to get solid location audio? (if used well that is..)

What's the purpose of the mixer if you can amp, control, and monitor your gain within the digital recorder?

[philper]

Originally Posted by Nick Name

As i'm looking into some of the suggested recorders/mixers, a question keeps popping up. If a digital recorder such as the 744 has its own set of preamps, level control, etc. Where does the mixer come in the chain and for what purpose??

I'm I missing a point by thinking that a 744, a pair of headphones and a proper mic/mics is all I need to get solid location audio? (if used well that is..)

What's the purpose of the mixer if you can amp, control, and monitor your gain within the digital recorder?

You can use the pres in the 744, but doesn't make for a very flexible arrangement re monitoring, multiple mics, slating, mixing, feeding a boom op etc etc.. I would recommend using a mixer with the 744, and using the 744's pres if you want to iso-track something. The 744 has small gain trim knobs for its mic inputs, but the line inputs are only controllable in software via a menu item. That said, there are a lot of ways to skin a cat in setting up your rig--see what you are comfortable with.

Philip Perkins

[Nick Name]

Thanks for the feedback Philip. That is more than likely the direction I'm gonna take.

Cheers.

[josh broome]

Nice improv with the Mbox, however why don't you send the audio directly to the camera via hardline or wireless? that will prevent any sync issues. If the camera only has a 8th inch mini input (like a sony pd150) just use a beachtek or similar xlr to mini adaptor. I've seen it done frequently, if you have multiple lavs run it through a field mixer first. although typically when I'm mixing, the boom recordings sound nicer. I've been reccommended the Sennheiser Rs 100 as a standard shotgun. Lots of people will send thier boom to camera channel one, and lavs to camera channel two as a a safety. Whatever you do, always bring a wind cover.

[danijel]

Originally Posted by josh broome

Nice improv with the Mbox, however why don't you send the audio directly to the camera via hardline or wireless? that will prevent any sync issues. If the camera only has a 8th inch mini input (like a sony pd150) just use a beachtek or similar xlr to mini adaptor. I've seen it done frequently, if you have multiple lavs run it through a field mixer first. although typically when I'm mixing, the boom recordings sound nicer. I've been reccommended the Sennheiser Rs 100 as a standard shotgun. Lots of people will send thier boom to camera channel one, and lavs to camera channel two as a a safety. Whatever you do, always bring a wind cover.

Josh, recording both video and audio to a single tape is generally considered lower quality than a double-system recording, and recording into a camera with an 8th inch jack would be a step down from recording into MBox. BTW, Sony PD150 has two XLR inputs, you've probably mistaken it for another camera......

@OP: I heard an interesting bit of info the other day in a lecture given by Roland Vajs, who was involved with ADR on Jarhead: they recorded some of the ADR in Walter Murch's edit room using a boom straight into an MBox

[josh broome]

right canon XL1, I don't actually go on shoots, I've just seen my co-workers go strait to videotape, thought it was odd at first but then I thought, why not? it is 48Khz, not quite sure how that could degrade the quality, care to clarify?

[philper]

Originally Posted by josh broome

right canon XL1, I don't actually go on shoots, I've just seen my co-workers go strait to videotape, thought it was odd at first but then I thought, why not? it is 48Khz, not quite sure how that could degrade the quality, care to clarify?

In every possible way. The analog audio electronics in even the most expensive HD video cameras ($100k+) would be considered mediocre by pro audio standards. Those in cameras like the Canon XL1, and PARTICULARLY that camera, are really substandard. Terrible headroom, noise and hash introduced by other electronics in the camera body, and inferior circuitry in every way. In order to hear this, all you have to do is hook up a mic and a mixer that can switch back and forth between direct and the return from the camera. The difference between what you are sending to the camera and what the camera is laying down will be very obvious. Prosumer (and consumer) video cameras have made great advances in picture quality for low price and small size, but the audio seems to get a bit worse with every new format. (HDV is noticeably worse than DV, for instance. ) On most serious shoots I've done recently with dinky-cams we are using double system audio and some kind of slating system, then syncing the audio up in the edit system. The smaller the camera, the more likely the double system route is the right one--on the very smallest new cameras (known around here as "burrito cams") we don't hook up to the camera at all anymore.

Philip Perkins

[josh broome]

Aha! of course, indeed the circuitry must be inferior, unfortunately I frequently mix these shoots, and harsh and noisey is definately a good discription, makes sense now, thanks!