Isn't sound 50% of a film (with good sound)?

I should post these slowly over a few days but I found some time and there are a slew of bits I've been collecting that I needed to post so it's a flood O' Blog!

This is a question that keeps coming up and gets argued over a LOT. There are lots of famous quotes all with different numbers, what does it all mean? Pretty much nothing.
Since there is no scale you can point to that will tell you which film has "good sound" nobody can really answer the question in a meaningful way. And say we did? What difference does it make? Sound gets 5%-10% of the budget on a decent film. Are you going to give it 50%? If so where do I sign up! If your sound centered then it's more important to you. If your a visual person then it's not. People keep saying bad sound will pull you right out of the picture. Well it certainly can. But it can be pretty OK and still be fine if the story and the visuals are good. If the visuals suck your lost also. Part of the reason this question gets the reaction it does is that low budget films have disproportionately crappy sound. They often have acceptable visuals and god awful sound. If most indi's put sound at say 10% it would be a mile of a difference. But they spend as little as possible on production. Imagine having for your DP someone who has never seen a camera before? Now how many indi's have volunteer PA's do the boom work? And sometimes they are the ONLY sound person. Then they get to post and someone with experience is going to cost a bit. So they go with some guy who "does music". I put that in quotes because I don't want to throw folks who actually do music in with the "dude who does music" who generally wants to do your post in garage band because it came free with the computer. What comes out is AWFUL. It's not even 1%. It's often garbage at best. So sound folks will say 75% because if you 1/2 believe them maybe you'll budget 3% and then they have a chance. My advice, don't use a %. Read your script. Know what it needs and feed the machine. If it needs 99% visuals then give it 99%. But on that scene where it needs 80% sound give it that also. In the end it depends on the film and the scene, and maybe the word. Give every shot what it needs and you will have a great film. It still may not make your career/ money/ etc. But it will be a great film that was the best that it could be. And that is all you can really hope for. If you do that AND do it at the right time AND have some luck... Bob's your uncle, as a friend of mine like to say.

OK that's all for awhile!

Doesn't Hollywood just ADR everything?

It's an assumption based on?
Hollywood probably on average does (well uses) less dubbing that low budget indi's do. A lot of the legends of Hollywood ADR are what was recorded, not what was used. Titanic, a film I know, recorded around 95% ADR, but used less that 40% maybe as low as 20%. And the reason we used that much was because FOX was building a studio around the ship so there was a LOT of construction sounds in that "big ocean". Many films end up using just a line or two. Hollywood as a rule HATES ADR. Italian films of a certain age were entirely ADR'd. Though that is a bit of a misnomer since many of those films were shooting a story and the actual words came during the edit so it was not actually ADR it was "original post dialog".

They can get away with it because almost all of their market is non Italian speaking so it is going to be dubbed anyway for almost all the viewers. And dubbing is not the same as ADR, especially done the way the europeans do it.

The point is you the low budget filmmaker should stay as far away from ADR as possible. So get a production sound person who has done it before and knows which end of the mic needs to point at your actors. LISTEN to the sound when you shoot. REDO takes that get drowned out by planes and traffic etc.

The long awaited follow up to 5D VS FCP

OK a follow up on my original post on the FCP bug (feature) that is causing problems for so many working with the Cannon 5D mrk II.

Last time I mentioned Sebsky tools
well here is the work flow.

1. Export as .WAV (yes .WAV)

2. Open Sebsky Tools (click to downloadhere)

3. Choose bwf2QT under tools. Check your settings, esp. that Timecode standard is set to 24fps.

4. Convert.

5. Give to FCP Editor.

(this is copied from a post on the DUC, thanks!)

Incase the above link doesn’t work I have also archived this important tool on my site. (click to download here)

BUT, it doesn't always work. I did four shorts with the D5 mrkII and two we re did with a special Quick setup in FCP that works perfectly, one the sebsky tools fixed and the first one which was finished before we found out there was an issue sebsky tools didn't solve and we had to do all the laybacks in ProTools. Others have had 100% luck with Sebsky tools so the failure may have been do to operator error but?

I’ve played around a bunch with this issue and it's tricky. FCP is restamping your files with the wrong sample rate in the mistaken assumption that you have been working at video speed and your files need to be pulled up to match the film speed that FCP is running at. The normal "fix" for this kind of thing is to pull down your files so when they get pulled up your in sync again. BUT Apple will "fix" you sample rate and THEN pull them up so the only hope is to fool FCP into thinking that you are already at film speed and the only way to do that is to fool FCP into thinking that you are sending it a film speed video clip. That is what wrapping it in a .mov file does.

It is also reported and confirmed by a few that FCP no longer permanently stamps your files (this was the case with early versions of FCP6) so that is good news.

The bad news is that this issue is still alive and well in FCP7.
Possible good news is that Cannon has seen the silliness of 30.0 as a frame rate and will “soon” be sending out a firmware update for the D5 Mrk II that will give it (supposedly) the same frame rates as the D7, ie standard film and NTSC and PAL frame rates.

The best workaround for the Cannon is to convert the footage to 29.97 before you edit. Or shoot in a non x.0 frame rate.
But The next best or first best depending... is to use the right quick setup in FCP.
I have linked to one that has been created specifically for working with the D5. When starting off with this quick Setup we had zero problems in post.

(to download click on this LINK)

Also there is an implication (not tested by me) that now that FCP no longer permanently stamps your files it might be possible to correct your settings in FCP and reimport and have it work. This would be GREAT if it works because it would be an after the fact fix. It didn’t work when we originally tried this but there may have been some operator error on the editors part.

Below is a quote from the DUC thread on this that implies you can post fix the FCP session and get the import to work, at least for PAL VS NTSC. And that should mean between any X.0 frame rates and non x.) frame rates but?

“Yes you are correct... FCP treats ANY integer Frame Rate this way, this includes 30 fps and PAL 25fps sequences as well... and of course, it works the other way as well - If you're capture settings are PAL and your sequence is 29.97 then it will pull up to try and match. Oh and according to Apple, this really isn't a bug, it's a feature! Seriously... according to the Apple folks I've talked to - this is the way they think it's supposed to work.”

<< updated to correct my referring to the 5D as the D5 - thanks Alex I'm sure I would remember if I actually owned one... Canon are you listening? >>

<< updated to fix links broken in my website move>>

Inglorious Bastards - follow up

A lot of folks for some reason really love this film. I'm not sure why? I didn't hate it but I'm a bit disturbed about the reconstructed history. Narrative films are often a bit slack with historical accuracy but I think this goes a bit far. From an artistic point I started wondering if this was based on a "real" story (before it was obvious that it wasn't), there were a number of attempts on Hitler's life so that isn't totally out of left field. But it took me right out of the film. And then when it's obvious I was really out of the film. So as a technique it failed for me. I felt like I had had a prank played on me and it wasn't a fun prank. A fair amount of gratuitous violence but it is Tarantino after all so one has to expect that. Christoph Waltz was great and will probably get an Oscar, but I didn't "get" the film.

AND the sound was a frame or two out of sync for the first reel? I have to assume it was intentional since the print would have to have been made that way. The screening was at Dolby so it's not likely that the sound system was out of whack so ????? It could have been a bad print but with the other shenanigans in the film it seems like it might have been a choice. But a quick Google search shows nothing so maybe it was a bad print.?.

Cheers
SK

Scary what you can find on the Web

I stumbled on this link that has a series of spots I worked on.

You just never know what will end up where. It's cool that they are there and that the site actually got our names correct! I'm just glad it's something that is good. There are those "other" projects you hope no one ever sees... But I'm sure some of those are out there also.

Cheers
SK

Just saw Inglorious Bastards

Hmmmm It was interesting but... Not sure if it was suposet to be a joke? Some good performances, but I'm not sure about the rewriting of history.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Screenings and Oscars

OK it's Oscar season so we have been going to a bunch of screenings. What's hot? I don't know, what I thought though is as follows.

Julie and Julia, HIGHLY recommended, but plan on getting something to eat afterward. It WILL make you hungry. Does anyone get an Oscar? Well maybe Streep, Tucci is great but it's Meryl's film. Don't get me wrong I could watch Amy Adams for days, and she is great but this is Julia's film. Avatar. I've seen it in 2D and 3D, I think the 2D is better. They pushed the 3D and I noticed a few problems with 3D. First your eyes get tired. Not sure why but more people than me commented on it. For some reason I don't think you blink as often as you should? Also in the "real" 3D world we are used to selective focus. If it's close and of interest we will focus on it. Avatar puts some things WAY out in the audience and you WANT to focus on them but you can't. A camera has a fixed depth of field, so that selective focus gets into trouble trying to focus on things it can't. When that is fixed, WATCH out, 3D will be great.
3D VS 2D aside AVATAR is like the first time you saw Jurassic Park. If the actors get even seriously considered for actor nominations it's a paradigm changer. Either way it's a great time at the movies.
Precious. Hard film. Mo'Nique is VERY impressive and Gabourey Sidibe is not likely to get any noms but should. Really strong performances.
A Single Man. WOW. See it.
A Serious Man. If you love the Coen Bros. then go for it, f not it might not be your cup of tea. I liked it.
It's Complicated. I fell out laughing more than once. Oscars??? Maybe, but it's a comedy. Go see it you'll have a good time. Screw the awards, go for the fun.
This Is It. I was prepared to ne so so on it. It was GREAT. What a fantastic performer and artist. More than one person said how they felt betrayed by the media for painting such a negative picture of such a great artist. I have to agree. See it.
Public Enemies. I saw it because of the bad press on the sound track. I was ready to trash it but... I though the film was OK and the FX mix was pretty good and the FX edit was very good (most of the time). The dialog mix sucked, but I'm not pointing fingers. To many people have a say and it sounds like from anonymous sources that a LOT of it had to do with Michael Mann micromanaging the mix.
Up in the Air. It was good, but not up to what I expected, So I think it probably has a lot to do with what you though coming in. It was a "good" film so I would be happy to pay for it but my socks were still on at the end and I though the would be blown off.
Coroline. REALLY good, even in 3D.
UP. Everyone I know cried at some point in this film, and laughed. Can you ask for much more? It is a very "adult" animated film that kids also like.
2012. This was a comedy, right? Woody H. is very good, but my god they have an aircraft carrier three times the size of Washington DC, we were supposed to be laughing at that RIGHT????? As a parody it was fun, but I don't think it was supposed to be a parody.
The Informant. Very good. I liked it a lot, but Oscar wise it falls by the wayside.
Crazy Heart. Really GOOD and Jeff is fantastic. GO SEE IT.

Sherlock Holmes. You've seen it? NO. drop what your doing and go. It's fun and entertaining and you will forget that you retirement is in the crapper for a few hours.

It's late and there are a few more but that is most of what I've seen. Go to the movies, there is some good stuff to see.