While this COVID straightjacket still hangs around, you might do well by taking a break from your current script and write a complete different project which you can live with while carrying the COVID monkey on your back.

I realise that you may be anxious about losing momentum but sometimes, things improve or resolve for want of intervention and action.

It can be a surprising revelation when you go back over a shelved project and find yourself asking, "what in the hell was I thinking, believing this or that would work."

The trees of the forest can get a bit thick, especially when you are rolling your own and wearing very many hats.

Why not write and shoot a small one-hander simply for the fun of it and come back to your passion project when conditions permit you to stay truer to your original vision. If you hack it up now and make too much compromise, you may regret it later.

You might also need to examine the leadership and management skills which are so essential to a director. Now is as good a time to take off to research and study leadership and managerial psyschology.

Directors are ideally remarkable team builders with more than a small dose of personal charisma, careful recruiters of people so they can confidently, delegate and trust them to get it right every time.

It is too easy for directors to be distracted by or take refuge in the tech and turn their actors loose when they are desperate for guidance.

You can't do it all on your own, certainly not when you are still developing your own skillset. Although there are a few souls who can pull it off, you may also discover they are incredibly intelligent, are old hands with very much experience or both.

Oh okay thanks for the ideas. I started writing another project, a Santa Clause type story more so. But anything has to be put to the same covid restrictions though, so not sure if this can be shot any differently, because of covid, but maybe.

In suggesting a "one hander" I should have expanded that comment. It would have to be a short film.

A feature-length single character film could run out of steam quickly unless told with flashbacks which then brings back the need for actors to be gathered together.

Examples to mind are "Castaway", "The Spirit Of St. Louis", "21 Hours", "2001 A Space Odyssey".

There will be films which become "typed" as COVID films because the story is founded in this time period with COVID as a topic or a style dictated by the safety conditions gives it away.

By "one hander", in present circumstances, the story might be written from the point-of-view of a person, maybe as a guard in a booth at a boomgate, a drive-through MacDonalds or a checkout operator at a small shop, with the camera locked off, triggered by your actor if need be.

Your separate single characters can be on the other side of a window if you want to have a live operator at the camera.

In suggesting a "one hander" I should have expanded that comment. It would have to be a short film.

That's a new one to me. I've heard of a "one reeler" or "single reeler" referring to old shorts when 35mm film reels were 1000 feet long, thus a running time of under 15 minutes silent speed, or under 10 minutes sound speed. Perhaps this is this related to your slang "one hander" (which sounded rather ... ahem ... questionable to me).

I was gonna "go there" but feared my comment would be summarily deleted.

Greg and Josh. Yes. The choices made in my use of the English language were rather unfortunate in this instance. The connotations attachable to those two words never for one moment entered my brain.

Me neither Bob - Alan Bennett rather made one-handers his own for a while. I always find them a bit strange though - Actors breaking the 4th wall and talking to the camera is just a bit odd?

I believe you mean “artistic.”

And dont mind the connotations...I may be in my 40s but my mind is 12.

A number of films do have actors talking to the audience. "Annie Hall" does it.in one scene,

They also look at the camera, sometimes with it as as the audience, other times at a character who is represented by the camera

So as I am storyboarding, I am trying not to give the characters much headroom so a boom mic can be close to them in the mastershots, but is it awkward for me to do draw master shots, where the actors do not have much headroom in order so the boom mic can go closer?

For example, in this movie mastershot here:

Paths of Glory (5/11) Movie CLIP - Closing Argument (1957) HD - YouTube

Why do they frame the actor so he has so much headroom between him and the boom mic. Wouldn't it just make more sense to frame so the boom mic can get as close in as possible?

Storyboards aren't about headroom for the boom, they are visualizing the telling of the story,

Oh yes for sure, but I figure I might as well keep the boom in mind too though, since I don't want mastershots with two much headroom in though. I thought about framing in 1.85, but now after storyboarding quite a few shots, I feel like that maybe 2.39 might have less headroom, while still being able to have a wide shot with a few actors in it, without having to cut anyone off now...

The height of the ceiling is usually the main issue for wide shots. Having a long boom also helps, for drama a 15ft job is part of the kit.

You have a huge massive room? If you letterbox too much then in an ordinary room space, the restricted width will cause you problems. I can't quite settle on that being a classic master shot though - it seems to be the primary shot - the framing, the content - and the camera move. I guess it's sort off a master shot, but it seems to be the key shot for most of the scene, till the closer framing comes in? Visually it does look good. Trouble is, the space required might be a snag for you without a very wide angle with no distortion.

Oh okay, but if I have some distortion, is that okay to live with? My boompole is 16 feet if that will do the job.

That length should be fine for drama work.

It depends if distortion is part of the look.

I'd say no. If you have bent verticals and horizontals, just to get a really wide screen - I'd say that's a mistake?

You're also not too good with the boom, I seem to remember. It caused you real trouble didn't it?

I found some of my shotguns today in the studio when I opened a flight case. I found an Audio Technica 815 - which is a longer shotgun than the 416's, but I also found my long lost AKG CK-9 - which is a monster long shotgun. Plugged it in and it still works fine - but I cannot find a windshield for it, so indoors only.

Maybe you'd be better with discretely hidden wavs on your actors Ryan - thinking back to the background noise. If you look at that old B&W clip - think how high the boom would have been. Is that feasible at the location you have in mind? A big untreated room will sound pretty horrible at a distance?

Oh okay but that is why I was thinking of shooting wider because then you can havea few actors in a wide shot but there's not near as much headroom like in that clip. So the goal would be to have a few actors in a shot but no headroom hardly and still get the boom in real close.

I don't seem to remember having trouble with the boom or if I did, what was it?

I'm just trying to save money on labs and I don't want to buy laughs for five actors or more if they can be avoided for a scene, compared to just using a couple of mics on booms.

but it seems to me that headroom in a master shot, is an easy fix, because all you have to do is shoot in a wide aspect ratio, and don't give the actors no more headroom then you would give them in a medium close-up shot.

You are letting the tail wag the dog with all this. Wide shots generally have more head room than a MCU.

Well what I mean is I wouldn't want to give too much head room so I could still use the boom. That is why I thought maybe shooting in 2.39 might be better now because as I am storyboarding in 1.85, the headroom may just be too much maybe if you want multiple actors in a wide shot.

This is a technical issue that should get addressed when picking a location or when you're getting ready to film, not when story boarding. Changing the movie's aspect ratio or framing because you don't know how to deal with low ceilings is like Brian said the tail wagging the dog.

Oh it doesn't have anything to do with low ceilings, I just want to get the mic in close for the sound quality to be better in the wide shots, and hence why I wanted to frame the wide shots, without much headroom in order to get in closer for quality.

If you can't get close enough with a shot gun mic on a boom, either use radio mic with a lav or ADR your dialogue or a rifle mic on the end of the boom, Although, with the latter, you need to be good on the boom, I've got a Sennheiser MKH 816 in my storeroom, the earlier models used to be standard kit for film sound recordists. If you ever see "Badlands" projected in the the wrong aspect ratio, you;ll see a 805 or 815 on the end of a boom coming into bottom frame.
.
A wide shot with MCU head room will probably look bad, that's unless you're using TV style framing on your MCU, which can tend to have a lot more headroom than used in cinematic drama.

Ryan why do the basic techniques of recording dialogue have to be explained to you? Most dialogue occurs in the CU or MCU. On the rare occasion it’s in the wide you use one of the methods Brian mentioned. It seems for every part of the process you come up with these weird approaches that don’t make sense followed by an explanation “well I just wanted to make sure...” If you had more experience on proper film you would know what needs to be done.

Oh okay, but I want good dialogue for the wide as well. Especially for a couple of scenes so far, where I wasn't planning on getting any MCUs. Some scenes have multiple actors in and the plan was too two wides. One of of half the actors, then a reverse of the other half, so two wides. But that's it, since I won't time for MCUs of each actor, plus some of the characters are not more major characters so individual MCUs are not called for, for each person who speaks. Now some movies do this though, so I thought it was do-able therefore, if it's been done before.

It's been done loads of times, but they've got the option of using more than a single shotgun mic on a boom.

A professional who does this for a living who has a wealth of experience would know the proper approach for any given situation. You on the other hand spend your day on internet forums discussing half bake ideas based on your limited amateur experiences, coming up with solutions to previous attempts that weren't executed properly. These discussions revolve around you trying to over plan and over compensate for all your short comings whether they be lack of experience or proper equipment/location/etc needed for a professional movie.

It's been done loads of times, but they've got the option of using more than a single shotgun mic on a boom.

But there are a lot of movies that have been made with just boom mics though, haven't there been, especially before lavs were used? So how did they do it?

They had people who knew what they were doing, proper sound stages that DON'T sound like cathedrals, or the open air on non-stormy days. However, the most important thing is the first one people. Skilled people, pro-active people, people that are worth the money they charge. Much better to not start fires than have detailed plans for fighting them.

Okay that makes sense. I can try to find a sound recorder/mixer who can pull it off then.

But this is why I thought a wide aspect ratio might be better, because then I can have say six actors in a wide shot, without having to have as much headroom then, if that makes sense. Or I thought it would be convenient anyway.

But there are a lot of movies that have been made with just boom mics though, haven't there been, especially before lavs were used? So how did they do it?

Often they had Fisher booms and they filmed in studios with proper acoustics,

Fisher Boom Introduction - YouTube

The average single person news crew goes out with more sound kit than you have.

Oh okay, I had the fisher boom one one of my shoots before, from an audio person but I didn't know it was called a fisher boom. Thank for showing me. Watching the video now.

However, I was told before that booms don't work for wide shots, because there is too much headroom. So if they used fisherbooms before, how did they manage to get around the too much headroom problem, unless I am missing it?

Because they were shooting in a studio where there's less reverberation and if you listen on some films, they're not that tightly miked. They may also have hidden the mics inside the set, I've done this on some corporates and it works extremely well on wide shots.

They could also use one or more Sennheiser MKH 805/805/816 mic on booms because they had top boom operators, You don't need to be that close with these mics. Here's a discussion on using them https://jwsoundgroup.net/index.php?/topic/87-opinions-on-mkh-816-and-other-big-shotguns/:

They had more gear and experience than you.

Oh okay. I have the NTG-3 mic shotgun mic, and the AT4053b. Should I use the NTG-3 for most of my indoor shots then, if you don't have to be as close with shotguns then? Or do you have to be closer with the NTG-3 as opposed to an 816?

I also tried attaching a couple of storyboard examples, to give an example of what I mean with mic headroom decisions, but I cannot figure out how to attach jpegs on here though if it's possible too?

You've got the gear, why don't you test it?

You can be further away with a 816 or other similar mics than with any shotgun mic. However, they need to be used with care and accuracy.

You don't need to post storyboards, I'm sure everyone knows what a wide shot looks like.

Another alternative is ADR, it's pretty easy these days. You can get the actors to deliver their lines again after you have the good take. That method was used on a very low budget feature I worked on and you weren't aware of any dialogue issues.

Oh okay thanks. Well I've done ADR in the past, and would rather find an on set solution if possible. But how much further away can an 816 go in comparison? It didn't really give measurements in the article.

I've used the NTG-3 on other shoots, but no matter how accurate you are at aiming the mic to the mouth, if there is something in the background that the human ear can hear, it seems the mic will still pick it up though in my tests. Even if the dialogue covers it up from aiming accurately, that noise could still be heard when people are done speaking, and in the room tone.

But what I don't understand is, when people say wide shots have too much head room for booms, then why not just frame the wide so there is not so much headroom then?

As I mentioned, for interiors they would've often been using sound stages in studios. Taking out background noise during the silence in dialogue tracks is a job for post production.

They mentioned a distance in the last message. You really need to test the mic you're actually using.

They frame wide shots for how it looks, not for having a mic 6 inches above people's heads.

The easiest method would be to rent some radio mics, if the shot is going to be wide and you don't want to ADR.

In the end you'll have to do what your resources will allow and work within them. It doesn't help if you keep imposing your own restrictions.

Oh it's just in the past I've had problems with radio mics, such as close rustling especially if you want the actors to move around more while speaking. So I was trying to find other ways. I guessed that master shots were framed because of how they look, not to get 6 inches above the actors head, but why not frame them in order to get those six inches, and put looks as secondary, since a master shot, without much headroom can still look good? Or won't it? I just feel that if you put sound in the framing first, and looks come second, then you don't not lavs as much, for each actor, unless I am wrong.

You've got the gear, why don't you test it?

Why bother to test anything when Ryan can get free advice here ... and then ignore it.

no matter how accurate you are at aiming the mic to the mouth, if there is something in the background that the human ear can hear, it seems the mic will still pick it up though in my tests. Even if the dialogue covers it up from aiming accurately, that noise could still be heard when people are done speaking, and in the room tone.

NO KIDDING! That is how microphones work. That is how sound waves work.

Q: How many people here are banging their heads on the wall?

It was said on here before that if the shotgun mic is aimed accurately enough, then that really helps solve the problems. I was point out how the background noise will still be a problem no matter how accurately the mic is aimed. And then it was said that sound stages help.

I can try to find locations where background noise won't be much of an issue then hopefully.

All of us. Twice today I have started to type a long response and then deleted it 'cause really, what's the point? The less you invest in the threads and just sit back and watch, the more tolerable they become. I don't know how Paul hasn't ended up in a padded room by this point.

NO KIDDING! That is how microphones work. That is how sound waves work.

Q: How many people here are banging their heads on the wall?

All of us. Twice today I have started to type a long response and then deleted it 'cause really, what's the point? The less you invest in the threads and just sit back and watch, the more tolerable they become. I don't know how Paul hasn't ended up in a padded room by this point.

I guessed that master shots were framed because of how they look, not to get 6 inches above the actors head, but why not frame them in order to get those six inches, and put looks as secondary, since a master shot, without much headroom can still look good? Or won't it?

You should be in radio. cinema is a visual medium, where the framing can imply a meaning to what's going on.

On your budget, the ADR method will work, just record the dialogue after the good take, so that the performances match. What's good enough for Fellini is good enough for you - he had to do it the hard way.

Yes, this more difficult than actually shooting the scene, Certainly it would take a lot less time!

Oh okay I thought cinema was also an audio medium just as much as visual and that it was pretty much 50/50.

You mean record the dialog right after shooting, on the same shoot? I have tried that though, but the speed of the dialogue did not match later, because the speed and timing was different though. We tried a few takes of course, but none of them match, and you cannot tell until later in the editing though.

Q: How many people here are banging their heads on the wall?

Oh okay I thought cinema was also an audio medium just as much as visual and that it was pretty much 50/50.

You mean record the dialog right after shooting, on the same shoot? I have tried that though, but the speed of the dialogue did not match later, because the speed and timing was different though. We tried a few takes of course, but none of them match, and you cannot tell until later in the editing though.
A professional who does this for a living who has a wealth of experience would know the proper approach for any given situation. You on the other hand spend your day on internet forums discussing half bake ideas based on your limited amateur experiences, coming up with solutions to previous attempts that weren't executed properly. These discussions revolve around you trying to over plan and over compensate for all your short comings whether they be lack of experience or proper equipment/location/etc needed for a professional movie.
Read this out loud a 100x before posting again.
You've had problems in the past with booming, wireless lavs, and ADR. There's no where to hide, you simply aren't good at this. Almost all your problems and questions are variations of how do you do something a different way because you can't do it the accepted way. Why do you think most people don't attempt to film their own movies, because it's hard and it's expensive.

Oh okay I read that but isn't it good to try to find different solutions if it wasn't properly executed before though? I can find a better location for next time, and don't shoot until I find one if that is better, and get better equipment as well, but I thought that less headroom in the wideshots, couldn't hurt either.

As the director your job is to create an engaging films that pulls the audience in. It;s not your job to worry about how the sound recordist is going to mic the scenes, it's your job to select a person that can carry out the job, no matter how you decide to shoot the film.

This isn't an aesthetic decision, you're painting yourself into a corner, as usual, over something that a competent sound person can do without even breaking into a sweat.

Oh okay, it's just I've worked with other directors who didn't pay enough attention to this sound and I thought it suffered as a result so I didn't want to do that as well.

But I can just storyboard and not worry about it so much. it was brought to my attention that I should storyboard the movie in 2.00:1. However when it comes to DCP spec requirements, they only list 1.85 and 2.39 as options though. I'm having trouble confirming if 2.00 is an option for DCP, if anyone knows for sure?

Maybe the sound department was under equipped for the job that they were trying to do.

You've already asked about 2:1 aspect ratio in another very long thread, so go back and look though it.