-
Why do so many audio professionals prefer dry audio when it comes to Foley?
Basically in my experience working with the audio professionals, they prefer to record all the Foley in a studio, and then want to add the room reverb and filters later in post. But I feel this creates a lot more work in post-production.
For example, if there is a scene that was shot in a bathroom, why record the sound effects in the studio, and then make it sound like a bathroom in post. Why not record the foley sound effects in a real bathroom and get that reverb in the recording? Saves a lot of time in post.
Or if someone is listening to a radio in a scene, they want to record the actor on the radio, in a studio, and then make them sound like they are on the radio later. Why not just record it through a real radio speaker?
Things like that I feel could save a lot of work and money in post-production, but the audio professionals seem to want to create more time and money in post production.
It’s like if a DP wanted to shoot a whole movie greenscreened, and then add the locations in post. It’s just less work to shoot at the locations and get it right while shooting.
So why isn’t this same belief shared by many, when it comes to audio?
-
16 Replies
-
Really? I’m somewhat surprised a question like that is being asked. Because you can’t unring the bell. Adding audio efx in post gives you the opportunity to try different sounds at different levels that might work better without stepping on the tracks. Things change between shoot day and post for many reasons and being able to make the change with no effort is why there’s post. In the feature film world the post budget is enough for you to retire on.
\”I push the RECORD button and hope for the best\”
-
Okay thanks, but what I don’t understand is, if you do it right while recording in the first place, why does the bell have to be unrung? Why not just do it right in the first place while recording? What do you by stepping on the tracks? All you are doing is recording Foley at the same locations to match. I wouldn’t call that stepping on the tracks, but rather creating the tracks the right way.
-
[ryan elder] “if you do it right while recording in the first place, why does the bell have to be unrung?”
Because it is impossible to “do it right while recording in the first place”. You don’t know how the mix will need to be when everything is put together. Unless you are doing some super simple and trivial. It just can’t be done in the Real World.———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder. -
Oh okay. Cause I have been recording the foley in the same locations to get the same reverb, and I asked people if it sounded like it was recorded in a different room and they said it all sounded like the same room and they could not tell the difference.
-
Yeah basically it’s all about leaving your creative options open.
Why do editors like to do their cuts in their NLE as opposed to doing it in-camera?? Same reason, creative freedom. What if you mistimed the edit, what if it was a bad scene, what if the decision was made later in the film that certain scene should take place at night instead??
When you record a sound, you also record it’s wnvironment, but that environment might be too ambient (echoey) to work well for the scene. Can’t really change it after the fact. You have a little control but not a lot. You may not see it, but getting the sound’s tonality right, it’s volume level and overall ambience, is the key to selling the right emotion.
It’s actually more critical than you know to get the sound right as bad sound stands out right away. Bad footage, more than often, looks like a stylistic choice and people will accept it more. Sound isn’t as forgiving. Bad sound equals a bad film.
Besides capturing a sound “dry” means it can be used over and over in other contexts too, in other films. Like stock footage, it can be added to a library available to use at a later date.
-
Oh okay, it’s just that cinematographers take that risk all the time, where they will shoot all the actors on the set in the camera.
They don’t just say let’s shoot the actors in front of a green screen, so we have more options in post. They actually make the decision to kill two birds with one stone while shooting, so I thought if DPs are comfortable doing that, why aren’t audio professionals?
But don’t you find it more work in post to have to do all that extra mixing rather than making the decisions while recording it in the actual environments? I just feel that if DPs can make that decision and live with it, without all these extra options in post, why can’t audio professionals?
-
Well for special effects they often do shoot actors in front of screens to keep their options open.
Often background noise and ambience is way too loud for captured sound effects to be of any use. The only way you can get a decent signal is to get a microphone much closer, but now it’s in shot!! You will need to mic their feet, their clothes, as well as the focus of the action along with the dialogue. Matters are made worse if the scene isn’t stationary. Can you imagine trying to record Tom Cruise’s feet as he’s running through the scene while being chased by a car?!? How would you keep up with him?? How could you get a good recording with the sound of that car or other ambient noises.
So even if you wanted to get the sound on set it can be a logistical nightmare.
What can happen though is in between shots, if there is time, some audio guys can get samples of certain things while still in the environment. Especially if the DP is grabbing some close up shots for inserts. You can get the mic closer and get s better recording.
You’d still have to do feet and clothes in post though. Along with other miscellaneous sounds.
-
No I don’t mean record all of the sound effects while shooting the actors. What I mean is after shooting the actors is done in a location, why not just record all of the foley and sound effects in the same location, to get the same room reverb?
Because for some reason a lot of audio professionals prefer to record in a studio environment and then try to make it sound like the same location instead of recording in the same location in the first place. And that’s just a lot of extra work in post. So why do it that way?
-
Sometimes it is done. It takes time to do though. So you may not get enough time before shots to address it.
But that’s okay, it’s more efficient for the sound guy to do it on his own time, while not paying for everyone else to wait for him. Naturally, the only time the sound guy gets to do this is in the post production phase.
-
[ryan elder] “They don’t just say let’s shoot the actors in front of a green screen, so we have more options in post. They actually make the decision to kill two birds with one stone while shooting, so I thought if DPs are comfortable doing that, why aren’t audio professionals?
But don’t you find it more work in post to have to do all that extra mixing rather than making the decisions while recording it in the actual environments? I just feel that if DPs can make that decision and live with it, without all these extra options in post, why can’t audio professionals?”
Because the “actual environments” are hardly ever what the sound designer wants. Because the sound of the actual environments hardly ever supports the visuals.
For example, say you shoot on an actual movie set. The set is a room, but two sides and half the roof are off for camera, dialog sound boom, and light access. The building this movie set is in is cavernous. Say it’s half the size of a football field. But the video shot in it depicts a small hotel room.
If you record anything other than dialog here (and the dialog is recorded as dry as possible), you get first reflections that are far longer than the small room shown in the video would generate. So you get “big room sound” when looking at a “small room” on the screen. Which doesn’t work. It doesn’t support the visual. In fact, it distracts from the visual. And it can’t reasonably be fixed in post, even with all the nice new de-reverb plug-ins you can dig up.
So movie sound people try to record everything “dry”. The sound designer takes all the dialog, Foley, sound effects, etc. and stacks them (sometimes hundreds of layers of different sounds) up for the shot. He/she spends time getting the levels right for each layer, works to get each individual sound positioned just right compared to all the other sounds (that hinge squeak has to lag the door knob turning sound by just the right amount to “sell it”). Usually each sound is EQed individually to make them blend as they should. Then the sound designer can add just the right kind and amount of reverb to make the entire clip’s sound package support what is seen on the screen. In the case above, that’s a “small room” reverb to make it match the “small room” seen on the screen.
I’m just sayin’ that sound is way different than video. DPs work way differently than sound pros. Different jobs require different work flows. This should not surprise you.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up