Posted by Steve King on 11/02/06 17:30

<mv@movingvision.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Im77SEINhhSFFwMX@movingvision.demon.co.uk...
>
>
> I've just got back to this debate after some days. Some of us have to go
> on location and actually produce films !!!
>
BIG SNIP OF REALLY SUBSTANTIAL CREDENTIALS

> I'll say again, one should never take ones own or any one else's case for
> a generality. The debate on going here about double system audio
> recordings and the strengths and weaknesses of HDV compared to whatever is
> mostly misleading but you can take it from me that there's absolutely
> loads of folks, including a few on this group, who are making high
> production value programmes, acceptable to the highest standards of UK
> broadcasters, on single camera audio, without a dedicated sound recordist,
> on everything from Z1's to HDCAM's that sound perfectly, and I mean
> perfectly, fine. And I'm not talking just news. I recently had an 8' 30"
> film short listed amongst nine out of well over 200 at the London Brick
> Lane 'Chilli' Film festival that I shot and produced using a Z1 and an A1
> as a single person crew, in very demanding conditions in the rugged
> Northern Region of Ghana, using mostly a camera mounted Sennheiser K3/ME80
> in HDV mode, the sound and picture is as clean and well defined as one
> could possibly use.

To give credence to your admonition to not take one person's experience as a
generality, I shudder to think of how I would have handled the audio without
a dedicated, experienced mixer with an extensive amount of kit on a recent
corporate shoot that involved five actors and multiple set-ups. High
production values yet a production budget under $30K.

And just to tweak you a bit, John, how does one put a K3/ME80 into HDV mode?
Forget it, I know what you meant --- I think.

> The thing with sound people right now is that they are trying desperately
> to defend a discipline and occupation that whilst still demanding for
> feature films and very high end feature documentary with challenging audio
> issues, has been much in decline since the early 90's.

If I earned my living as a sound mixer, as I once did, I would be concerned,
too. However, I know a number of sound mixers in Chicago and elsewhere, who
rarely, if ever do a feature, that keep pretty busy, some of whom are booked
pretty much wall to wall doing commercials, docs, and corporate work. Their
numbers compared to camera operators or grips are, of course, much smaller.

> There's still expertise needed for stereo (as opposed to multi channel)
> location sound, but that requirement is nearly as rare as hens teeth.

There is expertise required to be a boom person, and I have a show, where I
tried to get a relative (in the video business) to run boom that proves the
point;-)

> Mostly this debate has an 'emperors new cloths' ring about it. I'd say to
> anyone wanting a career in TV and Film today that dedicating ones
> expertise and training exclusively in sound recording would be as unwise
> as training to be a steam engine stoker. Like most of things we do these
> day to make TV programmes, it's not rocket science. The hard bit is
> creating programme ideas that someone else might be willing to put money
> into. Making films is easy compared to getting the money and getting the
> kit to work is even easier !.

So true! However, some activities that are not rocket science demand that
relatively simple skills be applied rigorously time and time again without
fail and with unfailing attention to detail. Camera operators, lighting
technicians, and cabinet makers come to mind. These qualities are not easy
to find. Your statement above might lead one to believe that anyone with
little or no training can perform the crew functions necessary to do high
quality work. I don't think you meant that.

Steve King (also with 30 years in the business with 25 of that running my
own show)

[Back to original message]