-
Why do so many audio professionals prefer dry audio when it comes to Foley?
-
Yeah but for some reason the sound people want to do this in studio, and this costs me more money cause then I have to pay the post production audio engineer to make something that was recorded in a studio, sound like it was recorded in a different type of room.
For example, I shot a short film with a scene in the bathroom. I needed to record Foley and sound effects, such as for the actors washing their hands, and paper towel and all that.
Now instead of doing this in a studio with a sink and paper towel, I went to a different restroom in post, and got these sounds while in the actual restroom in order to get reverb that sounded like a restroom.
This was much faster than recording in a studio, and then using computer effects to make it sound like a restroom. I asked viewers opinions and they said it sounded the same and could not tell the difference in the sound effects being recorded in a different restroom compared to the actor’s dialogue.
So this is what I mean. Why not use actual locations to get reverb, rather than creating computer generated reverb in post, which costs more time and more money?
-
The bathroom is one scene. Try a whole movie.
What if the acoustics didn’t match visually with what’s on screen?? It would have destroyed the scene and you’d have to do it again. There is a very real chance of that, you got lucky in a way. How many bathrooms are you prepared to try before you get it right??
This is obviously something you couldn’t have done on set either. Can’t be recording bathroom Foley while recording dialogue. The rest of the team aren’t going to wait for you to do it as well. Imagine 50 scenes in a movie where everyone is standing around half an hour while you get your effects. The cost would be 50 x 30min x everyone there x how much they are getting paid. That is a lot of money to pay everyone else for just one person to do their job. It is extremely non-cost effective. You cost more money doing it that way.
It doesn’t matter where you go, you could run around to all these locations in your own time to get the sound, but you’re at the mercy of the environment. Try recording someone’s steps crossing the street or pushing the crossing light button. You are going to pick up so much background noise. Whatever you get is going to be unusable. There will be all the sounds of cars and people that aren’t in the movie, much of it louder than your steps or crossing light. It just wouldn’t work
What about your 50 other scenes?? How are you going to record that speedy car chase or the sound of war?? Then there is the choreography. You have to see what’s happening on the screen so you can time your actions with the picture. So you have to drag this equipment around with you to many locations and set up, wait for your environment to be quite enough to record and do multiple takes, pack up and repeat this process for 50 more scenes. Hard to use while you’re moving too.
How many takes did you get because you’d have to record it for every take because you don’t know which take you’re going to go with. Each take will be slightly different.
Think about it, Foley has been around for 80 years or something. Hollywood is extremely good at coming up with ways to add to believability of a film, while counting their coins. If there was a more cost effective way they’d be doing it.
While it may seem more work up front, once you pull apart a movie and go around catering for every single scene, and all the difficulties you have with each scene, you will find it’s much more cost effective to bring everything to the studio where it’s much, much easier to choreograph and record. Rather than running around to many locations to get the sound, that may not match with what’s on screen. Just push the button and change the reverb type on a device or software plugin instead if running around and recording it again.
It may seem like it’s more work, but it’s faster, cheaper and easier to do it this way in almost every situation.
-
Okay thanks. I don’t mean for everyone to wait on set for the sound person to do it. What I mean is after the scene is done, and the actors can go home, then have the audio people stick around and record the sound effects.
As for going to another location to get a similar reverb, I have had much more success with that then trying to recreate the same reverb with computer effects cause the computer effects sound somewhat synthetic and artificial compare to the real thing, at least they do to me.
-
That comes down to experience and what you use. I can very easily dial in a convincing sound and reverb quite quickly. Much more quickly than. it would take me to go out and sample it in a different space. When you watch TV and film, nothing sounds synthetic there… unless its intentional. That’s because they’re very good at what they do too.
On the whole, the industry will always choose the most quick and cost effective way of doing something. No-one wants to spend more for less. So if the industry on the whole is doing it in the studios and not running around to locations and doing it everything there it will be because it isn’t quick and it isn’t cost effective, unlike doing it in the studios.
Its very easy to. look at one scene and see how easy it might be, but if you look at the wealth of sound possibilities and scenes within a production, how much the requirements vary from moment to moment, how the spaces and parameters vary, it would tell a different story. It’s actually quite astronomical.
-
Oh okay that makes sense. I guess it’s also partly me and my views as I always prefer practical effects, over computer effects, and I am biased that way, and will always try to achieve as much practical as I can, but I think I am biased that way.
-
Re: Why do so many audio professionals prefer dry audio when it comes to Foley?
same reason that tea manufacturers don’t add sugar to the tea leaves in the factory. Its best to add later to taste.
peterPost Production Dubbing Mixer
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up