I really wish you'd use the same terminology. Master shot and wide shot are NOT the same thing at all. A master shot is usually, but not always the wide shot.

Microphones are best considered torches. I've got a nice LED zoom torch and on wide, it's a cardioid, then it moves through hypers and supers into shotguns, then long shotgun.

In my theatre life, I always smile when we get a new follow spot operator. Everyone has told them it's easy. Everyone who says this is an idiot. Once you are good, it's easy. Keeping that circle in the right place is immensely difficult at first - predicting which way the person on stage is going to walk, and worse - the bigger the venue, the further away the spots are, and the bigger they are. Some are big enough to have considerable inertia. You need to keep the person in the beam, and if they walk out of it, you get fired! No joke. Let somebody famous plunge into darkness is the worst thing you can do. Follow spots have a lever - it controls the diameter of the beam. If you use too wide a beam, it lights up everything. Too small and it often lops their head off. Even worse - if they walk towards you the beam needs to be widened and if they go further away, narrowed.

EXACTLY like using a boom. All those things apply. If the boom is too close, the beam is too narrow, and missing their mouth is easy. Move it too far away and too many extra things appear in the beam.

I find it hard to understand you've used one of these booms - they're HUGELY expensive, and it took me a big favour to be allowed to try one out, and I know for certain that enormous amounts of practice are needed. even getting up onto one is difficult. Using a boom pole is not remotely similar. I have a rather neat gizmo that you can put onto the end of a boom pole - that when you twist the pole, it rotates the end. Even that needs good coordination.

You mentioned the lavs making noise - that too is a sound skill. Where exactly are you going to find this competent sound person? Do you have one you can call?

Well I was the boom operator and the sound person pointed out to the director how they wouldn't have lavs for the day. The director said they would work around it. But the director just did whatever shots he wanted and no matter if they could be framed without lavs or not. So I feel like I should be aware of that based on that experience.

I know a sound person who has lavs but he is not experienced with the boom as much so I would have to find somebody else to do the boom.

Oh and I have my own boom pole which is maybe why they ask me to, rather than me using someone else's. I feel I have gotten quite good at the booming. But when I direct, I prefer to concentrate on that, and find someone else to boom if possible, if they are good at it of course. I don't think the accuracy of the booming was the issue though. In the short film before, did the dialogue sound off axis? I thought the background noise was a problem but I thought that the aiming of the mic and the axis was overall good, unless I am wrong?

Also, I meant master shot, sorry, not wide shot. Sorry if I said wide, I meant master.

What kind of people do you work with where the Director is told 50% of the shoot is no good before they shoot anything and he ignores it? You also said I had the fisher boom one one of my shoots before So can't you get that person? If they can operate a Fisher an ordinary boom is childs play.

You have to face facts Ryan - you need a real sound op, and you need them to have the right kit. Keep in mind, you were pretty clueless with the boom.

When did I say a director ignored 50 percent? I said I thought sound was 50 percent of the movie besides the visuals. I didn't use the word ignore at all, nor did I say that 50 percent of anything should be ignored. Oh okay, how was I clueless with the boom before? Did the sound sound off axis with the mouths before, and was not aimed on the mouths enough? I didn't operate the fisher, someone else did. But I operated a boom pole that I lift on some of my shoots, depending on who was there that day.

And yes I can get a real sound op. But I thought I should give them less headroom in the mastershots, so they can get the boom in closer. Unless they are so good they can boom with a shotgun mic that is like three feet away or more and it will still sound good, in some of those master shots.

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.

Well if you already know that, why did you even bother to make that statement that I quoted above (in post #140)?

A long time ago I asked you a multiple choice question, which is higher priority to you, making a movie or talking about making a movie. Your answer was "making a movie." At the time I said I didn't believe it, and every inane comment you post on here proves that what you really want to do is just talk about it, over and over, same questions, same answers, same excuses.

Oh sorry, when you say if I already know that, know what exactly? Or what exactly are you referring to?

"That" refers to what was quoted immediately above my question about your knowing "that."

Your statement "I was point out how the background noise will still be a problem no matter how accurately the mic is aimed" and the surrounding context

Yes I see, but what about that statement was inconsistent exactly? Sorry, it's just I said that no matter how accurate you aim the mic, there will be background noise. I don't see where I said anything to contradict that, unless I am wrong?

Keeping that circle in the right place is immensely difficult at first -

Not to mention the "good old days" when you had to make sure you had enough carbon.

Ryan - it's rather sad that we remember your posts better than you.

We had tales of boom woe for weeks - strange noises, distant sounding, reverberant spaces. We've done it all before.

Read back just a bit - you said you did a movie where the director couldn't be bothered to wait for sound, so 50% of what was shot may well have had good images, but the other 50% had bad sound. The maths is quite simple. You said the director
[quote[The director said they would work around it. But the director just did whatever shots he wanted and no matter if they could be framed without lavs or not.[/quote]
He ignored sound's problem. You said it - he didn't bother. We just read what you say.

Here is a picture from a 3 set UK TV programme - really good audio - lots of actors, plenty of headroom and just 3 booms. No lavs. Made the same way sit coms were in the 60s and 70s and has excellent audio. No shotguns, just cardioids - back in the old days - they used AKG D25's but then lighter weight cardioids became popular (451s). The extra width of a cardioid means they can cover multiple people. Short shotguns work, but they're perhaps a bit too narrow for some uses. long ones even tougher to aim.

Yes I see, but what about that statement was inconsistent exactly? Sorry, it's just I said that no matter how accurate you aim the mic, there will be background noise. I don't see where I said anything to contradict that, unless I am wrong?

As usual, you are missing the point. It's not a question of being consistent.

IF, as you acknowledge, you already knew about mic aiming, how a quiet room (ideally a sound stage) would help, etc. ... then why did you bother, later on, to say "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."

You're just repeating something we all already knew. Going around in circles. Wasting time and energy. Looking for more excuses. Looking for something to disagree with.

Oh I said that because it was said before that I wouldn't have had a background noise problem if the mic was aimed accurately or so that's what sounded like I was told. I was just saying that even though I aim accurately there is still going to be noise no matter what in the background, unless I was missing something that maybe I didn't know about. That's all I meant.

That's definitely not what you were told. That's not how mics work. You have to eliminate background noise at the source or find a way to live with it. Sometimes something as simple as putting up moving blankets over the offending doorway or over the noisy machine itself can help greatly.

Where was that "said before"? Do you happen to know the post number? I'm wondering exactly what was said.

okay thanks. I apologize if I misunderstood. We tried putting up blankets but I think the problem is the sound still travels through the walls and blankets can't be put into the walls of course.

but it was also said before that I should have used lavs to get rid of the background noise. But if the human ear can hear background noise, then wouldn't lavs be able to pick it up though too?

but it was also said before that I should have used lavs to get rid of the background noise. But if the human ear can hear background noise, then wouldn't lavs be able to pick it up though too?

No, I do NOT think that was said here previously. If you want to prove otherwise, please tell us the specific number of the post so I can read the original and see if you're quoting it correctly.

Again you are paraphrasing, misquoting, and misinterpreting. I don't know if you do this because you are really, really dense, or because you are intentionally being perverse. But of course it's impossible to carry on a productive dialog with you because you do this all the time.

Out of curiosity, which do you think it is? Being clueless about whatever topic is under discussion, or being intentionally perverse?

I think it's being more clueless. I don't mean to be perverse. I will try not to give that impression. I apologize.

unless I was missing something that maybe I didn't know about.
The list of things you do not know about is not a small one.

What worries us is your lack of progress - you don't evolve and grow, just go in an endless circle. We try to help, but you make it so damn hard.

People explain things really well, then you say "so you're saying ......" and they are NOT. It's so clear what they meant, but you really don't understand. Your aim is so high your ability cannot support it without assistance and your available help seem to be 16-18yr old college basic level people. You have never ever told us about any of your people who is an expert, ever!

Most weak Directors get away with it because they are supported by excellent people and you don't have, as far as we can see, any at all! All the people you tell us about are clueless - some dangerous - yet you keep saying "I have been told..." Who are these people who feed you such rubbish sometimes? Or are they giving you the same advice as us, and you just don't understand them too?

Ryan - you drive us to the edge sometimes, but you do not learn - it is so frustrating. Other forum members avoid these topics, have you noticed? The number of readers is high. the number of people who try to help limited to us old faithfuls - who are really trying hard to educate you, but you are such hard work, and we get tired and grumpy. Im sorry about that, and we sometimes snap - but are you aware how difficult it is to communicate with you? You twist our words, you repeat it back mangled and you often clearly did not do what we suggest, but pretend you have. You say you watched a video - but I bet you gained little. Everything you do is mimicry of somebody else's product. You copy good things but tweak them badly. You dismiss things because you don't understand them. When I had to produce reports on students - you would have been "usually tries". Can you up your game

No, I do NOT think that was said here previously. If you want to prove otherwise, please tell us the specific number of the post so I can read the original and see if you're quoting it correctly.

Again you are paraphrasing, misquoting, and misinterpreting. I don't know if you do this because you are really, really dense, or because you are intentionally being perverse. But of course it's impossible to carry on a productive dialog with you because you do this all the time.

Out of curiosity, which do you think it is? Being clueless about whatever topic is under discussion, or being intentionally perverse?

I feel every six months or so I have to step in and clarify that Ryan has confirmed he is on the spectrum, 'cause he will never tell you himself. It affects, seemingly, everything about how he thinks and processes.

sorry I don't mean to reject advice on here. It's just some of the advice I've already tried and it didn't work because of other problems before, so I think well that can't be right or I'm missing something therefore. But I don't mean to give a disrespectful impression. I'm sorry.

I do truly appreciate all the help and I have taken suggestions on here before and that they were for the better for sure. And I thank everyone for all the advice.

You should do some basic studying on how sound is handled in post production. Every film will have the same issues that you bring up over and over again and yet they solve them when they put the sound track together,

oh okay, it's just that so many things can't be removed once it's recorded so I didn't think it would be possible. However it was pointed out that some new technology was available in the last four years now, before on the thread.

I feel every six months or so I have to step in and clarify that Ryan has confirmed he is on the spectrum, 'cause he will never tell you himself. It affects, seemingly, everything about how he thinks and processes.

Josh, I have kept that in mind. I think ryan's personality quirks make it impossible for him to remember accurately and to process logically. The result is his cluelessness. I think his realizing that and stating it is at least one small step in the right direction.

I wish I could get Ryan in a locked room, with no outside interference, and try to explain sound to him. On this forum, Ryan keeps bringing up different issues, and of course various people chime in to address those issues, and the focus keeps changing back and forth. Meanwhile, Ryan never assimilates the most basic information about any given topic.

If I were trying to mentor Ryan, I would go slowly, with a quiz at the end of each simple concept, to be sure he wasn't misinterpreting before moving on to the next level.

e.g. LESSON NUMBER ONE: "A theoretical microphone, in a theoretical room, will, to some degree, pick up every sound in that room." Then let him ask all the questions he wants about different mics he has used or heard of, different noises, etc.

But how can we possibly achieve a focused learning situation here, in this (or any) forum?

That is why I've said more than once that Ryan needs a good local mentor, and an apprenticeship opportunity somewhere.

So, Josh (and others) how can we get any positive result from this forum, before we all agree just to abandon it?

PS: Don't expect any reply from me soon, it's time for dinner, ABC News, and Jeopardy. I'll be back after 7:30.

My solution is I think I'm out. I'm gonna try to deprogram Paul and then he and I are running away to New Zealand together to pet sheep and play music.

oh okay, it's just that so many things can't be removed once it's recorded so I didn't think it would be possible. However it was pointed out that some new technology was available in the last four years now, before on the thread.

I edited a film that had dialogue scenes in a car, I put it together so that you weren't aware of all the things you seem to be obsessed with. You stop filming if there are things like trucks going past or doors slamming in the background.

I think you're right. I need to take a rest from Ryan's topics, so I will try to not respond - but I find it hard to not try to help him.

I'm going to search on ebay for as many bass flutes as I can find, and run a road roller over them.

If I read between the lines this is what must have happened in Ryan's head

Problem: Background Noise

Advice: Move microphone closer to subject

Ryan's Application of Advice: I need change the framing of my wide shots or change the ratio of the entire film to reduce the vertical space or "headroom" so I can get the boom mic closer to the subject while still remaining out of frame.

Normal approach: Let qualified sound guy decide on the right approach (wireless lav or adr) for noisy location. End of story!!!!

[joins everyone else in New Zealand to pet sheep and never read Ryan's endless problems]

Oh okay, well the thing is, I have had problems with the normal approach before. ADR we tried before on past projects, me and the sound person but couldn't the ADR performances to match the visual performances in terms of speed.

And as for moving the mic closer, I thought that by me deciding to have less headroom that would help get the mic closer. I am just trying to make it easier for the sound person, since I figured his advice would be to have less headroom to get the mic closer anyway. So I was just trying to do what I thought was obvious to help with that. That's all.

Also the lavs do not work in noisier locations in past experience, because in past experience when I tried lavs, the lavs actually picked up more background noise than the boom mics. The lavs have a pick up pattern that causes more background sound to be picked up. So how are lavs suppose to help when they will just pick up more background noise because of their pattern. That is just my past experience, but that is what I do not understand, is how they are they suppose to help when past experience says they were worse. That's all I was trying to say. I didn't mean to come off as rude or anything of the sort.

It's just that lavs and ADR did not work before, so I thought since that didn't work, I thought I should try to find alternate solutions. I was just going by past experience and was just saying their were problems with those before, but I did mean to make it seem like I was knocking the advice. I was just trying to say, I tried it before and it didn't work. But of course, maybe I was missing something before?

My solution is I think I'm out. I'm gonna try to deprogram Paul and then he and I are running away to New Zealand together to pet sheep and play music.

I seriously think we should make a pact, then take a vote whether or not we have any further communication with Ryan. He is not learning anything from any of us, all he wants to do is explain why he's always right about everything, and argue with us. Civilization is going to end anyway, I can think of better ways to spend the next few months other than interacting with Ryan. And they do *not* involve sheep in any way. ;-)

oh okay, it's just that so many things can't be removed once it's recorded so I didn't think it would be possible. However it was pointed out that some new technology was available in the last four years now, before on the thread.

Ryan, once again you are talking out your @$$ without thinking first. What do you mean by "so many things"? How do you know they can't be removed? How much experience have you had trying to do any sort of noise removal? C'mon, don't explain storyboards or locations or some other diversionary nonsense.

Answer this question: How much experience have you had trying to do any sort of noise removal?

Well I tried removing an air conditioner sound from the background once, by following instructions on how to do it in adobe audition, but I felt that really brought down the quality of dialogue sound though, giving it a muffled sound. So I felt it was best to leave the background noise in then, so in order for it to not be muffled.

But that was my judgement call, perhaps I was wrong then. I can try more.

Are you the director or the sound mixer? It is not your specialty and it is not your job to pretend you're the mixer. And some mixers are better than others. Did you give anyone else an opportunity to work on that particular file? (And also that presupposes that you had a very good sound recordist, who got the least possible amount of A/C noise in the track in the first place ... another big assumption.)

How about using precise language, instead of being so damned dramatic about everything.

What you should have said was "I tried to remove one sound once, and it didn't turn out as well as I'd hoped." PERIOD.

perhaps I was wrong then.
Correct. You were wrong.

I can try more.
Wrong. You get a sound man who knows what he's doing, and let him do his job. If you try to do it yourself you are just setting yourself up for more failure.

This nonsense about "so many things can't be removed" is absolute and utter BS. And obviously I am getting tired of waltzing around your constant flow of BS. If you want to have a meaningful conversation that is helpful to you and not offensive to the rest of us, cut the BS!!! Put on your big boy panties and be factual instead of being so damned dramatic and over-inclusive with your statements.

You should do some basic studying on how sound is handled in post production. Every film will have the same issues that you bring up over and over again and yet they solve them when they put the sound track together,

Long, long ago I recommended that Ryan buy and read the excellent book on Audio Post production written by Jay Rose (who, sadly, has left this life). I doubt that Ryan has ever bought it, let alone read it.

Oh thanks, that was quite a while ago. I thought I ordered that book back then but maybe it didn't come or I'm not sure. I can't remember. I can order it. Thanks again for that. Sorry I forgot about it way back. Or maybe I have it around here somewhere, I will look.

Well I can leave it up the sound person I just don't want him to ask to him redo a lot of my storyboards if I do them now though. But I was just going by experience, being the boom operator on someone else's shoot. But maybe that won't be the case.

Well I can leave it up the sound person I just don't want him to ask to him redo a lot of my storyboards if I do them now though. But I was just going by experience, being the boom operator on someone else's shoot. But maybe that won't be the case.

Ryan, I cannot unscramble this grammatically. I cannot figure out what you are trying to say. The first sentence is especially bad. One thing that would be helpful would be for you to slow down, write clearly, proofread what you have written, then edit as needed before clicking "Submit."

I'm sorry. What I meant was I thought I ordered the book back then and it's probably around here. I will look for it. Sorry for not reading it, I probably am just concentrating on other areas of filmmaking. But I will read it, I promise that.

Ryan, you are absolutely impossible to deal with. Look at the text I quoted! I said I didn't understand that, and instead you replied about something entirely different that you wrote. How can you expect to have a productive conversation here and learn anything about any subject?

Ryan your MO is one of avoidance. Instead of treating failures as opportunities to get better you spend your time on trying to avoid them.

I don't know how many times or ways I can say this... You don't have the aptitude to produce and direct you're own movie. You obviously like movies so do us a favor find some other role in the process that you have the ability to do. I think if you were honest with yourself the true purpose of making your own movie is to make yourself feel important. If that's the case you shouldn't waste our time with all these question that don't lead anywhere. I'm assuming this is more of a vehicle for attention.

I'm sorry if I was not able to have a conversation properly. I don't mean to be difficult.

I can try to spend more money on the problems and also try to find better locations. I just reach the point where I figure maybe it's best to do the best I can with what I have and try to get something in the can, rather than not at all. But I will try to look harder for better locations, and more crew and more actors to choose from for next time. Perhaps I should make it in a different city with more options for the next one.