Guide Track?

Digital equipment is not the solution to good sound recording.
Many sound mixers including myself recorded countless movies
and documentarys using analogue recorders that gave perfectly
good results.

Good results rely on good microphone choice and placement, be it
boom, plant or radio mikes.

But good results also rely upon favorable production circumstances
and producers and director who realise the value of good sound recorded
on location and the fact that it captures the performance of actors .
It also gathers small nuiances of sound detail that would take a lot of
time and
money to achieve in post production.

Sure with larger features there is time and money to replace dialogue
but many of us have worked on movies of the week and episodics wher you
are expected to deliver usable sound.

>From dramas I have recorded in the last 5 years I would estimate that
at least 85% of
my results were usbale, sometimes higher.

Sure if background noise makes a scene unusable then it has to be
replaced and if
a director feels that an actors performance needs pulling up, or and
accent fine tuned
then the answer is replacement.

Digital equipment gives better results but that is not the decisive
factor as far a quality.

I do not quite understand your statement regarding a good guidetrack,
unless you mean
that if production circumstances do not allow good sound, then a good
guidetrack is
needed to allow accurate dialogue replacement. If so, this is how I see
it.

Regards

Mike
www.mikewestgatesound.co.nz
 >> Stay informed about: Guide Track? 

On most pictures, if I gave them only 50% usable track on Day #1, there
would be a new mixer on Day #2! Of course, it depends on the picture, and
the locations, but if all goes well on a dialog heavy movie, I'd say a very
high percent of production track will be used. On an 80 day picture a few
years ago, each of my principals were contracted for three days on ADR and
most used one. One used none (just lucky on him<g>). The actors love that;
three days pay for one day of work! BTW, with plugins like Voc-align (sp?),
it is getting pretty difficut to spot the ADR any more.

D.

<frasser.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123093050.263411.241010@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> HOw much recorded dialogue on location is actually of good enough
> quality to be used in the final movie?? I believe that with recent
> digital equipment more sound is useable but I doubt that more than 50%
> is good even with wireless mikes?
>
> My theory is that GOOD guidetrack is just needed to make a good dub in
> the dubbing theatre??
>
> Any news on this??
>
> thankx
> Frz
>
 >> Stay informed about: Guide Track? 

Boy, that's a really offensive question. I work on lower budget films, but
almost all of my recorded tracks get used, and it is typically the wireless
tracks that get ADR.

Brad Harper



<frasser RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123093050.263411.241010@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> HOw much recorded dialogue on location is actually of good enough
> quality to be used in the final movie?? I believe that with recent
> digital equipment more sound is useable but I doubt that more than 50%
> is good even with wireless mikes?
>
> My theory is that GOOD guidetrack is just needed to make a good dub in
> the dubbing theatre??
>
> Any news on this??
>
> thankx
> Frz
>
 >> Stay informed about: Guide Track? 

In our post work, it frequently happens that lines are ADRed and then
the director goes back to the original performance @ the mix.

Philip Perkins
 >> Stay informed about: Guide Track? 

As a postie, I'd rather work with production tracks every time. I'd rather
go in and assemble a sentence out of syllables from alt takes, if
necessary to avoid a noise or hit, than ADR. It sounds better.

--
Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com
 >> Stay informed about: Guide Track? 

On the movies I've mixed I can only report one ADR session, and that to add some
breathing and change a line. That movie won the Alma [latin American Oscar]
award. Others may have done some, but not to my knowlege. Studio pictures tend
to do more ADR, especially if they have a lot of money and are in a hurry, for
example, too much of a hurry to read the sound report. I would say most studio
pictures today have between 20-60% ADR, depending on the location, FX, etc. If
you have a controllable location and don't screw the sound department at every
turn, the only reason for ADR is to torture actors.

John


frasser.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:

> HOw much recorded dialogue on location is actually of good enough
> quality to be used in the final movie?? I believe that with recent
> digital equipment more sound is useable but I doubt that more than 50%
> is good even with wireless mikes?
>
> My theory is that GOOD guidetrack is just needed to make a good dub in
> the dubbing theatre??
>
> Any news on this??
>
> thankx
> Frz
>
 >> Stay informed about: Guide Track? 

Tell me that I am wrong, Jay, but it seems that a lot of post guys think
that is faster (true) and cheaper (possibly) to replace any track that isn't
pristine. It seems that no one has the time and budget to make our stuff
work which is one of the reasons that, perhaps, multitracking will only make
the percentage of production track used shrink. Tell me that I am mistaken,
please.

D.


"Jay Rose CAS" <SEE-SIGFILE.RemoveThis@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:SEE-SIGFILE-0308052213400001@192.168.1.101...
> As a postie, I'd rather work with production tracks every time. I'd rather
> go in and assemble a sentence out of syllables from alt takes, if
> necessary to avoid a noise or hit, than ADR. It sounds better.
>
> --
> Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
> Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
> Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com
 >> Stay informed about: Guide Track? 

In article <uoCdnYQ_H7--GW_fRVn-ow.DeleteThis@giganews.com>, "Douglas Tourtelot"
<tourtelot.DeleteThis@nospanspeakeasy.net> wrote:

> Tell me that I am wrong, Jay, but it seems that a lot of post guys think
> that is faster (true) and cheaper (possibly) to replace any track that isn't
> pristine. It seems that no one has the time and budget to make our stuff
> work which is one of the reasons that, perhaps, multitracking will only make
> the percentage of production track used shrink. Tell me that I am mistaken,
> please.
>
> "Jay Rose CAS" <SEE-SIGFILE.DeleteThis@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:SEE-SIGFILE-0308052213400001@192.168.1.101...
> > As a postie, I'd rather work with production tracks every time. I'd rather
> > go in and assemble a sentence out of syllables from alt takes, if
> > necessary to avoid a noise or hit, than ADR. It sounds better.

Doug,

I can't say if you're wrong. I know I'd rather do the micro edits... it's
certainly fast and cheap, even counting the time to look through the
production DVDs for alts. Maybe not as fast as throwing another line on
the ADR list, but it sounds a heck of a lot better in the mix.

But when you say 'a lot of post guys' are you including post supervisors?
Or Avid editors... because you can't do this kind of cutting in an Avid.
(Frame lines? We don't need no steenkin frame lines in audio.)

J

--
Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com
 >> Stay informed about: Guide Track? 

Douglas Tourtelot wrote:

> Tell me that I am wrong, Jay, but it seems that a lot of post guys think
> that is faster (true) and cheaper (possibly) to replace any track that isn't
> pristine. It seems that no one has the time and budget to make our stuff
> work which is one of the reasons that, perhaps, multitracking will only make
> the percentage of production track used shrink. Tell me that I am mistaken,
> please.
>
> D.


Hmm, this seems to be a classic example of the Production triangle.


Good.

Fast.

Cheap.


Pick two.




John
 >> Stay informed about: Guide Track? 

"Jay Rose CAS" <SEE-SIGFILE.DeleteThis@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:SEE-SIGFILE-0408052126050001@192.168.1.101...
> In article <uoCdnYQ_H7--GW_fRVn-ow.DeleteThis@giganews.com>, "Douglas Tourtelot"
> <tourtelot.DeleteThis@nospanspeakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> Tell me that I am wrong, Jay, but it seems that a lot of post guys think
>> that is faster (true) and cheaper (possibly) to replace any track that
>> isn't
>> pristine. It seems that no one has the time and budget to make our stuff
>> work which is one of the reasons that, perhaps, multitracking will only
>> make
>> the percentage of production track used shrink. Tell me that I am
>> mistaken,
>> please.
>>
>> "Jay Rose CAS" <SEE-SIGFILE.DeleteThis@rcn.com> wrote in message
>> news:SEE-SIGFILE-0308052213400001@192.168.1.101...
>> > As a postie, I'd rather work with production tracks every time. I'd
>> > rather
>> > go in and assemble a sentence out of syllables from alt takes, if
>> > necessary to avoid a noise or hit, than ADR. It sounds better.
>
> Doug,
>
> I can't say if you're wrong. I know I'd rather do the micro edits... it's
> certainly fast and cheap, even counting the time to look through the
> production DVDs for alts. Maybe not as fast as throwing another line on
> the ADR list, but it sounds a heck of a lot better in the mix.
>
> But when you say 'a lot of post guys' are you including post supervisors?
> Or Avid editors... because you can't do this kind of cutting in an Avid.
> (Frame lines? We don't need no steenkin frame lines in audio.)
>

I was working on a documentary with an Avid/FCP editor earlier in the week.
We've worked together before many times. I like his work a lot. That
said... I was unhappy with the sound in a scene. The interviewee's level
was a bit of all over the place. I asked for some compression to even
things out. The editor admitted that he struggles with the audio tools in
FCP, doesn't really understand how to use them, and worries about how much
time it takes him to fix audio problems. He's a visual guy. I played with
a couple of plug-ins and got a result that I was happy with. Since then,
I've talked with several other editors, who voiced the same general
befuddlement about audio. These are guys at smaller shops, but I suspect
the relative comfort with visual issues and the discomfort with audio they
express goes a lot further up the food chain. I also came away with the
feeling that the audio tools in FCP are non-intuitive and somewhat crude
compared with ProTools and even Adobe Audition and Vegas. Don't know if any
of this applies to the issues you're discussing at the network and Hollywood
level.

Steve King
 >> Stay informed about: Guide Track? 

G. John Garrett, C.A.S wrote:
> Hmm, this seems to be a classic example of the Production triangle.
>
>
> Good.
>
> Fast.
>
> Cheap.
>
>
> Pick two.


After hearing this old saw for years, some time back I gave it some
thought and came to the conclusion that, although a glib statement, the
math doesn't quite compute. In reality, it turns out to be about
"one-and-a-half" at best.

For instance, even if there's plenty of money available, if it's too
fast it won't be quite as good. If you want it good, but haven't the
money, slow isn't the word for it -- it takes almost forever. Without
the money, even tons of time won't keep it as cheap as most producers
would like and, with it dragging on like that, the quality will still
suffer. And, of course, if you want it fast, there's the rush charges.

To put it another way, if you truly want it good, a lack of either time
or money will cripple that effort.

Yep. It's one-and-a-half at best. At least that's certainly true if
any measure of "good" is an important result.

Anyone feel free to disagree.

These days, if clients (I'm talking my post business) start talking
quality speed and cheap in the same breath, I tell them to "pick one."
That usually changes the tone of the conversation. Normally, when that
conversation comes up, it's all about money, meaning that they have
little or none. A non starter for those of us who like to do good work.

Ironically, the project I'm posting now has the budget and wants it both
fast and good. Fortunately, the client has realized that those two
aren't completely compatible. She's working to get more time. Which
takes me to.... bye... back to work.

John Blankenship, C.A.S.
Indianapolis
(email: my initials at mw daht net)


 >> Stay informed about: Guide Track?