Audio in my experience is way easier to manipulate than video. You can chop up lines, sometimes even words, add, fx etc and make it blend/sound real/seamless (if you know what youre doing) way more easily than you can do the same thing with video. Probably something to do with how humans process sound vs visuals. That’s the difference.

You need to consider who these people are and are they asking for things they want, or for things they've heard others ask for? This happens all the time. BBC now use producers straight from uni - who know nothing but know the jargon!

Unless Im reading wrong this whole project is Ryan’s baby. So I assume he’s the producer/director.

That clearly is a problem as the hired help appears to be running the ship, slapping him all the time. He needs to tell them what he wants and is paying for, and make some sensible decisions.

When you have a project. You set solvable problems - you need to do this, so to make it happen, X will happen. If you are the producer out the director, then you should know how many cameras you would like and how many you can afford. If you have a cast of thirty all talking on one screen, then one mic on a boom isn't going to cut it. However the intimate scene with two people close in probably can be done with a single mic. If the budget is not huge, and the talent not particularly well gifted as actors, then all this stuff about ambience and room sound/tone and Foley is probably best simulated afterwards. Let's be honest. real locations rather than studio sets are rarely nice sounding, so why would you want to capture them when you could do better with dry mics and a few SFX CDs. Back when we used lots of SFX on CD, I was a great fan of the Hollywood Edge collection and you hear so much of their stuff instead of real location sound. Simulation is controlled and almost infinitely tweak able - real life isn't.

If you have every worked in European Churches, you'll know the acoustics for music are generally wonderful. However, none of them record speaking well at all, so why would you even try to record decent audio for speech in them?

The advent of film making tools inexpensive enough for the average Joe leads to these type of threads. The downside is you have a bunch of guys running around with dslrs on electronic gimbals with no knowledge or experience. Combine that with the millennial generation who rely on google for all their answers instead of thinking for themselves.

As an outside observer I can’t imagine a more unpleasant project. Trying to create a feature film by yourself, in over your head, no money, not the right equipment, little knowledge or experience. Spending count less hours on a message board asking what if this, what if that... with no end in sight. This could take years to complete with no payoff.

The short answer to all of Ryan’s questions, know and understand the standard practices and deviate from them at your own peril. You need experience and common sense to deal with all the problems that will arise for a specific situation. But without a firm foundation of the basics you’ll be forever running around trying to discern who’s opinion is the right one. Good schools teach students to think for themselves.

I don’t mean to be harsh but that’s the reality of it.

I also assumed these advisors were just people he had asked about methodology, not necessarily people hired on and committed to the project. I could be wrong about all of this.

He hasn’t said but it’s safe to assume no one is being paid, instead they’ve agreed to work on each other’s project for free. For example, he films a music video of their rock band, in return they help him with the audio for his movie.

Yeah that's kind of how it is, I filmed some stuff for them and they were up for returning the favor.

I could record all the Foley and sound effects dry and then manipulate in post, it's just I am worried about not being able to get a match with the dialogue that was recorded on location. In the past I wasn't able to get the most satisfactory matches, compared to recording all the Foley and sound effects in the same location afterwards.

I know what you mean when you say real locations do not have the best acoustics, but the dialogue is already recorded in those real locations, so aren't I stuck trying to match the acoustics with the sound effects and Foley anyway?

For example, one of my scenes coming out is a courtroom scene, and I want to record all the dialogue during shooting. Even if the courtroom does not have the greatest acoustics, I can't do all the Foley and sound effects, with a different reverb and acoustics added onto it, because then it will sound different than the courtroom acoustics. So aren't I forced to suffer with the same location acoustics, since all the dialogue is recorded from them? I'm just afraid that if I add better reverb and better acoustics, sure it will sound better, but it won't match the more crappy location acoustics of the dialogue, and that's what I'm afraid of.

Nope, see that’s what those pros spend months doing is adding reverb and delay fx, eqing, etc. to those dry fx and tweaking until they match the courtroom (in your example) acoustics.

You have to understand there’s nothing “magical” about that environment...that wood (or whatever materials the room is made of) is going to dampen certain frequencies and emphasize others. The distance from the subject from the walls and the size of that room and its dimensions are going affect how the sound waves bounce around and how quickly theyre absorbed (reverb and delay characteristics). Once you know all that crap, you can add reverb and delay fx with those settings that match the real acoustics, eq, etc. and make any dry sound sound like it was recorded in that environment.

That is how its done. Its a tremendous amount of work, again but thats why theres usually dedicated department just devoted to the sound mix instead of one guy doing everything. It gives you ultra precise control on the mix compared to the substandard results of having baked in reverb/delay that cant be removed from those effects if you record them the way youre trying to. You will have a fixed amount of reverb/delay in anything you record the way you describe. You may decide in the mix you want it dryer or wetter and youll be more or less unable to do anything about that with sounds recorded the way you describe (difficult/impossible to remove reverb once its in there, adding reverb on top of more reverb gives weird unnatural results). I cant make it clearer than that. Anyone else correct anything I have wrong; I am not a sound pro.

Okay but the part I don't understand is, you said that the Foley and sound effects should match the room. So why not record that in the same room, as oppose to trying to match the room later. You give the what where and how to do things it seems, but not the why I feel, or I am just understand the why, that's all. Why make it dryer, or wetter, when you have to match the location anyway?

And yes, I wouldn't have a whole team doing the post production mixing, it would probably be all me.

Okay this might help me understand it. You say it's good to record everything dry so you have ultimate precise control. But the dialogue is not recorded dry, in post. So why isn't that, if you want precise control? If the filmmakers can accept not having precise control over the dialogue, then why are they so picky about the sound effects and Foley of everything else, if the dialogue is not as precise even?

There is just a contradiction in the belief that recording dry yields the best results, and that contradiction is, you still have to match it to the not so perfectly acoustic dialogue, so how does recording dry work, with that contradiction, which was never explained I thought.

Foley is NEVER recorded live on location, it's a post production creation technique. It makes the sounds the picture requires that were not recorded.

If you record in any space, your brain draws conclusions from the sound. The same words recorded can tell the listener if they were spoken in an empty room, a room furnished, a room furnished with Windows in the countryside, or a furnished room in a busy city. Your brain can hear you are in a cathedral, a small church, a sports hall, an ice rink, a football stadium, in a helicopter, or standing in the basket of a hot air balloon. These things can be simulated in the studio from dry, clean audio. If your audio is contaminated with the clues from the real location these options are not open. You can usually make spaces bigger, but making them smaller can become very, very expensive and often impossible.

Film makers do care about dialogue, that's why so much of what you have heard or seen in cinema was re-recorded in replacement sessions. You can even do this kind of thing in audio software many people use, like Cubase! You take your location sound. The talent repeats their lines as close as they can, and then the software uses your location clip as a master and warps the new clip to fit it. Perfectly possible to do, if the producers care enough to fund the time and people.

Pretty much I view recording on location as an uncontrolled environment. Too many times you simply don't hear the errors on location and only discover them back at base. I see no contradictions?

Dialogue does get replaced in post if the original isn't of high enough quality. It's probably done more than you think, sometimes it's recorded on location with the mic much closer than can be done during the actual take, while the actor is in the mood. It's then replaced in post, other times its recorded during post production.

The scheduling of ADR with the actors may depend on their contracts and availability. I've heard of it being done with the production team being in LA, while the actor is somewhere else in the world.

Sound recordists pride themselves on how much original dialogue is in the final mix,

You can record effects at the location, but usually time pressures usually mean revisiting the location after the shoot is finished. On some films I made, this was often done at night or on a Sunday morning, when there were few other noises around. However, the effects were pretty closely miked, so was probably a lot closer than a boom mic might be for many shots. Also, they might be recorded at a different location because the sound of an object (e,g. a door) was more interesting than the original

On the last short I made, apart from a few lines of dialogue, most of the sound track was created in post.

Oh okay that makes sense. And if I were to record sound a different location, I always make sure to get the mic in close. It's just I know how to do practical sound effects more than computer effects.

As for dialogue, I suppose everything would sound better if it were recorded in a studio later, to manipulate anyway I like, it's just a lot of actors in my experience don't seem to like to do ADR and the emotional performance was not as good.

The controls and filters in a DAW are basically the same as found on a sound mixing desk. As in the analogue world, you need to experiment and play with them, listening to the results.

Oh okay, when it comes to recording location audio, I don't bring a DAW, I bring a field recorder, unless you are talking about mixing with a DAW afterwards?

A field recorder and possibly a microphone mixer with some bass cut filters should do the job for most things.

The DAW is for post.

Oh yeah you are saying I am going to have to use a DAW anyway, in post...

Yeah I for sure, I usually just use the virtual DAW in Adobe Audition.

Ryan you've got confused with terminology again. DAW. Your computer, your laptop, irrespective of operating system, is a DAW if it can manipulate audio. My edit suite is a DAW too because it has audition, sound forge and Cubase installed on it, the same as my audio audio computer has premiere on it! Making it a video editor.

Digital Audio is self-explanatory and a work station is where you work? There's no such thing as a virtual workstation, but I suspect you are thinking workstations MUST have real faders and knobs to turn. They are very nice, but the DAW is the tool you use to do your post, inside or outside a computer. The people who have made sure your media education is mangled have some answering to do. A good young friend of mine, he's been working for me for three years recently left to go to work in the US for a very large entertainment organisation. He was quite good at some things but he gobbled up jargon, buzz words and convinced him self he was amazingly able and techno savvy. Sadly, his use of vocabulary in the Skype interviews got him a job that hasn't yet lasted 39 days and he's asked for his job back.

Oh okay, I thought a DAW was one of those big studio workstations, my mistake. Thanks for telling me all your advice, and thank you everyone else!

I have another audio question, if that's okay. I boom with the AT4053b mic indoors, but the mic is very sensitive to wind, so when I shift boom from actor to actor, wind gets in the mic and causes unwanted static noise. The mic comes with a a spongy cover, but it's not enough to block out the wind. I was told to get a rycote cover, but that cover is furry and seems like overkill for indoors perhaps, where as I still want the sound to be as clear as possible, and worried that a furry one might muffle it a bit. Is there a better cover to block out air resistance, while indoors, from shifting the boom?

OK - the noise isn't static, and sounds nothing like static, but that's a common word people use to talk about noise. Static is sharp, crackly clicks and pops - things that in your audition show up as a sharp vertical line. Noise is a wide band difficult to remove thing.

Many shotguns come with those foam windshields and they're generally ok for use indoors to stop the gentle wind from being heard when you move positions quickly. Outside windshields come in two basic varieties.

The zeppelin shaped, fine mesh covered 'frames'. You put the mic inside, on it's grip with the vibration reducing clamps and the air inside creates a still space, and the wind doesn't get through the fine mesh, leaving you with pretty much silence in a light wind. If the wind speed is higher, then some still gets through, especially gusts. You can then get two kinds of cover. one is made from a fleece type material, like the zip up fleeces we wear. This stops more wind. If the wind is still making it through - then you need one of those long hair covers - the fine hairs make a good job of soaking up energy from the wind, and these are the best and most effective protection. Downsides are the weight when dry, but the weight when wet can be huge. They also weigh enough to start to have inertia, so sharp stops can make the tip of the mic sway and even hit the inside!

Have a look at the full range of UK Rycote wind protection. Sennheiser also make some themselves, and I have a couple of these kits. I also have a dirt cheap Chinese one I bought ten years ago that I use if there's a chance I might wreck it. So far, I've lost a couple of lugs, so the end falls off easily, but gaffer cures all.

The second type of hairy type wind system is the one piece. These have what look like a tube of the open mesh kitchen pan scourer plastic stuff inside - an open mesh, maybe 3" in diameter with a hole up the middle. The end is rubber, and essentially you get your mic, and stuff it into the tube, which is semi-stiff. The outside has the familiar hairy fibres, permanently bonded to it. These work pretty well, and are less heavy than a Zeppelin and cover system - BUT - the mean the mic has to be supported from the very end with the connector, and my experience is the weighty eventually stretches the rubber in the pistol grip and they start to dangle. The internal mesh also comes unstuck from the rubber, and when pulled off, the rigidity is poor and sometimes you have to kind of 'thread' the mic into the internal tube cavity, because the stuff inside has broken up.

That's the mechanics. you asked about clarity. All windshields stop HF to a degree. These are carefully designed to reduce the wind and not to reduce the audio - and with our doubt, these things do dampen the very top end. However, wind is also very annoying, so with the bottom end tamed by the shield, and probably the roll off switch on the mic - the small loss of HF is of little consequence, and a twist of an EQ knob easily restores it. Handling noise for me is the biggest problem with mics on booms. You need to develop the knack of not creating bumps and thumps, hence why headphones that work are so vital. sometimes you see boom ops constantly changing their hand positions, because their arms ache, and every change of hand position creates a bump - big or small.

Again - practice is required. Some mics are very susceptible to sideways movements. If you look at a 416, for example. As you rotate it on it's long axis, in some orientations, more of the slots are visible. The wind enters through these slots, so if you make the side where it is more solid face left and right, that provides a small barrier to the wind. It's actually a tiny difference, but I always insert the mic this way, because the physics (not any revue I've ever seen) suggests a benefit, that may or may not be there. I rarely get left-right wind noise, so I have convinced myself the idea works. Could of course be rubbish, but it does not harm. Sometimes, wind noise is inevitable the best you can do is to reduce it.

You can remove the furry windjammer, if you want and change it to a foam one indoors. Although, if it's just the pull on Classic-Softie job, rather than a Zeppelin type windshield, people tend not to bother, Rycote's are made to a high standard, the Classic-Softie is described as a: "Thin-walled cavity design for acoustic transparency across the spectrum." They are pretty standard kit news and current affairs work.

I gather they now also have one that you can put over your foam cover, so that you have both.

Some mic designs are more prone to wind noise than others.

Oh okay, it's just the Zeppelin type cover, which I've used before creates a much more bulky shadow for the DP to have to deal with, at leas that is what they've said before. Plus, you can't get as close to the actor with the mic, with the Zeppelin on it, cause the Zeppelin is about six inches longer than the mic, thereby adding on another six inches of mic distance.

So is there any other type of cove to buy to put on it, that does not create extra mic distance hardly?

You can remove the Zeppelin indoors, then put on a foam cover on the mic. Some sound recordists keep a foam cover on permanently and then remove the basket as required, the Rycote one slips off in seconds.

Ryan - you need to toughen up a bit. You are being used as a gopher, not employed for your talents but to be bossed around and treated like you know nothing. Your boom will cause shadows. That's correct. They do. You can pass the problem to the LD and see if they can cure it. Or - you assess the problem. Listen to the wind noise with NO windshield, pop on the foam one, and do some test movements, or just listen to the breeze and see how gentle it is. If it's too bad, then the bigger windshield is the ONLY solution. Depending on the hierarchy of the shoot, you need to assess YOUR status. You have a few options.

You say to the director/producer.

I can't get clean audio with the unprotected mic - we can shield it and have some shadows, or we suffer the poor audio - your call. I prefer the clean audio. What do YOU want to do?

They will say - is it sortable in post. You then take the responsibility of saying yes or no. At this point if you say no, they will ask cameras or lights for their input. All apartments stick in their best solution. The Director makes the call, probably elbowed by the producer who will be seeing the extra costs for post recovery.

My experience of inter-department rivalry is that EVERYONE wants their component to be solid. This is quite right. However, compromise is usually required and this requires discussion and bending to the common good. If lights say the cannot sort the shadows, which they will of course, you need to be able to have enough knowledge to known when they're stretching it. Same with camera - if you constantly get in shot with the boom, it's your fault. it could be that they're just framing unrealistically and won't budge. I'm frequently now playing the role of Production Manager and spotting the tactics people are using to deflect problems. To do this you need experience, which for you at the moment you don't have - so learn some management and people skills to deflect your problems onto others.

Always offer at least two alternatives. The skill is making one unacceptable, and the other acceptable, but with carefully applied spin.

Camera people can often solve mic shadow issues, sometimes give and take on the framing also helps. On other occasions, the sound department can find ways around when there's no way of using a mic boom, e.g a wide shot that shows everything.

Again, pretty sure Ryan IS the director and producer. But he may also be running audio.

He also seems to be the camera department, assuming it's the same film. There are a couple of threads involving a lens issue and coloured lighting.

Yes. I’ve been where he is. It’s not that unusual in zero budget land...on shorts. On a feature it seems nigh impossible unless that feature is three people sitting and talking in a room for two hours.

" I boom with the AT4053b mic indoors, but the mic is very sensitive to wind, so when I shift boom from actor to actor, wind gets in the mic and causes unwanted static noise"

- As Paul already stated, wind turbulence noise and 'static' are entirely two different things, .. at least to audio folks. If you are getting a low frequency rumble, you're probably doing something wrong with booming or your gear set-up. I've rarely had air turbulence issues with a 4053, when the OEM screen was not adequate, I used an Olsen/Windtech US-2 dual-stage foam windscreen (about $35.USD as I recall). I never used an AT-4053 for exteriors.. nor would I want to. For my 'interference tube' (aka, shotgun) mics. I have zeppelins and Softies.

“This is Crash Zoom”

" I boom with the AT4053b mic indoors, but the mic is very sensitive to wind, so when I shift boom from actor to actor, wind gets in the mic and causes unwanted static noise"

- As Paul already stated, wind turbulence noise and 'static' are entirely two different things, .. at least to audio folks. If you are getting a low frequency rumble, you're probably doing something wrong with booming or your gear set-up. I've rarely had air turbulence issues with a 4053, when the OEM screen was not adequate, I used an Olsen/Windtech US-2 dual-stage foam windscreen (about $35.USD as I recall). I never used an AT-4053 for exteriors.. nor would I want to. For my 'interference tube' (aka, shotgun) mics. I have zeppelins and Softies.

I did some tests though and it's definitely the wind. Cause when I put the AT4053b in the Zeppelin with the deadcat on, the problem goes away, and I can swing the boom from actor to actor without any noise interference. So the wind is definitely causing the noise. However, the hairy sausage is very large and shadow-ish for tight indoor shoots, and it creates six extra inches of distance between the mic and the actors.

So I was wondering, if there is anything else for wind protection besides the hairy sausage that would be better for the AT4053b? But it's definitely the wind.

As for if I am running audio or not, no I want someone else to of course, but I need to budget the equipment I need to get still, as well as the video equipment, etc.

Just keep in mind that equipment is no good unless whoever is using it knows what theyre doing.

Okay thanks, for sure. I usually get someone else to operate my equipment while shooting, but then in post, I do a lot of the sound effects and Foley, with the same equipment, so it sounds more the same, rather than trying to use different mics and pre-amps, and trying to match it more.

But as for the issue of the AT4053b, making noise when shifting the boom from actor to actor, I think it's the wind, from shifting cause it does it more without wind protection on. I was told to just have the boom mic operator move the boom slower, but I want to boom to the next actor on time, and be ready and aimed, so they have to move fast.

Since I have the equipment though, I also am a boom operator for other people's projects, and I have wind problems with the mic when booming fast as well. So what do you do about that problem? Usually I am able to boom fast enough that the wind problem is over, by the time the next actor speaks but you still hear some sever interference for a short fraction of a second, that has to be cut out in editing, and I don't like that. Is this normal?

Regarding "wind" when moving the mic, the answer has already been given, either use foam cover or a softie on the mic, if you're not using a zeppelin. Try tilting mic from side to side to favour each actor as required, so you don't make big movements bu swinging the mic. ,

Have you discovered the angle flip trick? If you are doing rapid sideways movement to get the mic above each person, then that wind can be too much for light weight foam, so the trick is to put the boom equidistant between them, then rotate the boom to favour each person. You don't then move the actual pole at all, just rotate it? I bet you're always trying to go down vertically? Depending on the situation you can also try hyper-cardioid mics too - these may sound slightly more distant, but room allowing, can do pretty well.

Okay thanks. That works for scenes when the actors are close together, but if I am doing a scene when they are further apart and need to get the mic close to each actor, then I have to do bigger swings with the boom.

But even a tilt still makes wind noise, cause the mic is tilting fast, from person to person. I can get a cover for the wind, just wondering which is best, since I thought the furry ones, might be too heavy duty and cause a little muffling in the quality.

If they are a long way apart, you need two booms. You cannot boom that fast with a heavy top load because it has to move too fast. I've never got wind noise from twisting a mic through 90 degrees, even when done in the speech gaps. With longer mics, the maximum speed is defined by the mount's ability to cope with the turn . With more than say 6ft between the actors, moving position to record a conversation is too much for the inter-phrase gap, so it's still moving when they speak. It just works badly.

Oh okay, what do you mean by 'interphrase gap'? Do you mean the amount of time it takes to move the boom vs.. the amount of time it takes for the next actor to talk?

So far I usually shift the boom in wide master shots, but if it's an OTS or close up shot though, I tend to keep the mic on the one actor who's mouth you can see moving, as oppose to the other actors, who you cannot see in the shot.

Is this bad, and should I still take turns booming the other actors, even though they are not on camera for that shot, if I am the only boom operator?

Favour the in vision speaking actor when shooting the singles, the other actor could have their face stuck in close to the camera to give the best eye line while feeding the lines.

Oh okay. Well as for the notion that if the actors are more than six feet apart I should try to get another boom operator, the boompole I have is 16 feet long. Isn't one of the points of having a long boom, to be able to move the boom longer distances between actors?

Not really, the longer pole allows you to reach further into the set without being in shot.

Yes they do that too, I just thought I could have more length to move the boom from actor to actor as well.

But even if I just tilt the boom 90 degrees, there is still wind interference in the mic if I do it quickly. So I guess I will still need some wind protection for that anyway.

One scene I have coming up is a courtroom scene. If I cannot get a second boom operator, would it be too much for the boom operator to boom from the actor playing the defense attorney, to the actor playing the prosecutor, if they are that far apart? It's more than six feet, but with wind protection, would it be do-able then?

The goal posts move so fast in this topic. No sooner do we settle on one problem, we zap off on another. I'm picturing now a court room. Usual layout. Quite a few people speaking a long way apart. Screams lavs to me, not a boom, or booms.

Rotating a mic on the end of a boom doesn't create wind noise to me. Remember Fisher booms in to studios, they can move a mic up down left and right very quickly and with no wind noise on a short shotgun. They can snap left and right between people. It's what they do. Interphase? The ℗ between different actor's lines. If you choose to ignor one actor, how do you recover it? Shoot again this time favouring the other..

YOu made it clear you are a beginner, now you have others doing it for you?

If you want to do it properly, then do it. Your solutions appear to be doom and gloom. You have one mic, you now have a big space, with lots of people to cover with it.

However, I watch US drama and note all US courts feature podium and desk mics, why not use them? Or hire some lavs and a multitrack recorder, or hire a spare boom op and do it properly. If you dont have the time to learn how to move a mic silently, or find a way to do it with one mic, then how can we help. Is the next scene going to be suddenly outside, in a blizzard, next to a jet airplane, with an actor trying to whisper to another? It's problem after problem, and every solution brushed aside with reasons it won't work.

I have a strong feeling most of the problems are just down to a lack of knowledge and skills, and jumping too far before the experience catches up. I really understand beginners getting in, but this is like auditioning for the third spear carrier in Shakespeare and then discovering you are sharing the lead role!

There is a number of books on this subject. If you're recording sound on a feature film, it would be worth checking them out.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Producing-Great-Sound-Film-Video/dp/0415722071/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=film+sound+recording&qid=1559543912&s=books&sr=1-4

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Producing-Great-Sound-Film-Video/dp/0415722071/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=film+sound+recording&qid=1559543788&s=books&sr=1-4

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sound-Design-Expressive-Effects-Cinema/dp/0941188264/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=film+sound+recording&qid

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sound-Effects-Bible-Create-Hollywood/dp/1932907483/ref=sr_1_17?keywords=film+sound+recording&qid=1559543852&s=books&sr=1-17

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sound-Design-Low-Budget-Films/dp/1138839442/ref=sr_1_18?keywords=film+sound+recording&qid=1559543960&s=books&sr=1-18

Mechanical sounds like cables slapping against a long boom can to be a problem on fast moves unless you've wrapped tight,

As mentioned, Fisher booms didn't suffer from wind noise and they were moved very quickly., J.L. Fisher - Model 7 Boom (http://www.jlfisher.com/booms/model_7_boom/index.asp)

Fisher Boom Introduction - YouTube

Film Craft 107: The Location Sound Mixer - 8. Operating a Boom Mic - YouTube

youtube videos are often terrible - that's the best boom video I've seen. Don't disagree with anything he said. Watching that video would stop some college courses wasting peoples time!

However, I watch US drama and note all US courts feature podium and desk mics, why not use them?

I often see them placed for visual effect rather than audio effectiveness.

The goal posts move so fast in this topic. No sooner do we settle on one problem, we zap off on another. I'm picturing now a court room. Usual layout. Quite a few people speaking a long way apart. Screams lavs to me, not a boom, or booms.

Rotating a mic on the end of a boom doesn't create wind noise to me. Remember Fisher booms in to studios, they can move a mic up down left and right very quickly and with no wind noise on a short shotgun. They can snap left and right between people. It's what they do. Interphase? The ℗ between different actor's lines. If you choose to ignor one actor, how do you recover it? Shoot again this time favouring the other..

YOu made it clear you are a beginner, now you have others doing it for you?

If you want to do it properly, then do it. Your solutions appear to be doom and gloom. You have one mic, you now have a big space, with lots of people to cover with it.

However, I watch US drama and note all US courts feature podium and desk mics, why not use them? Or hire some lavs and a multitrack recorder, or hire a spare boom op and do it properly. If you dont have the time to learn how to move a mic silently, or find a way to do it with one mic, then how can we help. Is the next scene going to be suddenly outside, in a blizzard, next to a jet airplane, with an actor trying to whisper to another? It's problem after problem, and every solution brushed aside with reasons it won't work.

I have a strong feeling most of the problems are just down to a lack of knowledge and skills, and jumping too far before the experience catches up. I really understand beginners getting in, but this is like auditioning for the third spear carrier in Shakespeare and then discovering you are sharing the lead role!

Oh okay, thanks. Why is it that fisher booms do not suffer from it particularly? Is there something better about them than boom poles? Also it's only the AT4053b that seems more sensitive to wind. The NTG-3 I also have, does not have wind problems when moving the boom in comparison. Does that mean anything significant?

As for courtroom having podiums, I thought that was just for public trials, where there is a large group of onlookers in the back who want to hear everything. This is just a preliminary hearing scene, where there are no onlookers, so would the lawyers still speak through podium mics then? I can research that.

Many modern courtrooms use audio (and video) recording instead of (or in addition to) a court stenographer. It is not uncommon to see gooseneck microphones especially on the witness and the judge for purposes of recording. The jury has no speaking parts. But the attorneys are the wild cards and may wander all over the place, but often speak from their respective tables. I would put wireless on the attorneys if they are wandering around. OTOH, for arraignment or preliminary hearings, they are often shown with the opposing counsel standing at podiums facing the judge.

Courtroom mics are not for amplification, they are for the monitor who is recording it to to maintain the record of the proceedings. Podium/table mics are the most feasible solution for that situation, they’re not intended for anything of quality that would be used in cinema.

Courtroom mics are not for amplification, they are for the monitor who is recording it to to maintain the record of the proceedings. Podium/table mics are the most feasible solution for that situation, they’re not intended for anything of quality that would be used in cinema.

True, but Ryan's "cinema quality audio" ship sailed weeks ago. We seem to be trying to discover the "least horrible" way of capturing dialog with limited resources. Although, if he has already recorded "wet" dialog track, that ship has already sailed as well.