that film quality sound.
 

I've always been wondering what they really used to get that sound for film.
I always thought it was just the mic but apparently not. it wouldnt be that high quality if it wasnt recording at a higher khz rate due to the mixer also, am I right? so can someone point in the direction of some equipment that possibly some of the pros out there use?
Thanks.

There is a quite variety of gear that could be used but more often it's HOW it's used and the attention to detail in its use that's more important than the equipment selection itself. Good quality microphones and sound gear is important of course, but so it properly matching the mic's characteristics to the sound source and the environment, properly positioning the mic to the sound source, insuring the chain to the recorder is noise free, recording a clean signal at the right levels without overload or clipping, paying attention to the subtle details of sound colouration etc in post, and the $$ to take the time to do it right, including the $$ to replace dialog with ADR in the event the original recording is hosed.

Typical equipment might include such industry standard mics as the Schoeps CMC 641 hypercardoid or the Sennheiser 416 for boom mics, Countryman lavs hidden on the talent, Sound Devices 302 or 442 field mixer, Sound Devices 744 recorder or one of the current big ticket faves, the Zaxcom Deva multichannel recorder. But all that's just the tip of the iceberg and by no means an exclusive list of professional quality gear. The professionalism of the operators is far more imprtant than the professionism of the gear, at least above a certain minimum level. You're not going to get the same sound from a $20 mic from Radio Snak as you'll get from a $2000 Neuman no matter how experienced the operator of course. But an experienced operator who is motivated to do a good job can get good sound from a $200 mic and better sound from a $2000.

yea. thanks for the info I was actually already looking at the sennheiser 416 mic, and the 442 mixer. as for the recorder. couldnt I just have the mixer plugged into my camera? cause I can't remember the site but I found where this guy made a mount for the 442 for his pd and vx where it connected at the tripod mount.

For one, you'll have far more headroom with a separate recorder (assuming its of good quality) than you will in recording to camera. Personally, I don't think 12 dB of headroom (which is the most you can leave when recording direct to camera) isn't quite enough.

Of course you can go direct from the mixer to the camera and get good sound. You can also get lousy sound. You can go to a separate recorder and get great sound or you can get terrible sound. It all depends on how you use the tools at your disposal. The audio stages in cameras are generally more limited than those of professional grade separate recorders but that's only one piece of the picture. Also, what you are shooting enters into it. A good DV camera 16bit/48kHz carefully used might be perfectly fine for dialog but if you're shooting a philharmonic orchestra you'd look for something more capable.

Keep in mind that lots of the sound you hear in a high dollar production is not recorded on the set/location but on a Foley stage subsequent to filming and all of it, whatever its source has been "sweetened".

I thank everyone here for they're input and useful info. it helped me out.
thanks again.
Garrett Goerl