This instructional video teaches you how to work as a Digital Asset Manager (DAM) preparing double-system video and sound files for use with Final Cut Pro 7.

UCF Film student Zachary Beckler explains how to handle importing data, organize files, transcode video, and the manual syncing of sound.

This video was updated July 27th, 2011.

What does production sound get you?

A clear signal with a perspective in relationship to the slated image.

Will there be ambient shifts?

Yes. To not achieve an ambient shift per set-up would require the microphone to consistently maintain its location through out all coverage of the scene. Consider for a moment why this may not work best for your film.

Does production sound recording also mean sound design and sound editing and sound mixing and sound mastering?

No. Production sound recording is to achieve a clear signal with a perspective in relationship to the slated image. Therefore, as per the image, there will be a lot of sculpting to do in post production. Sound, like the image, must be “color corrected” to make sure everything matches into one seamless whole. Imagine the amount of sub-competent DP’s we have running around if we held them to the same standards of production.

But I have to do work with the signal afterwards… doesn’t that mean it’s bad sound?

If you find you’re trying to save the clarity of your film because of a poorly recorded signal, then yes, what you have is bad sound. However, these are some common (and normal) issues that may arise in the edit of a clear signal recorded in relationship to its slated image:

Ambient shifts- The editor will have to find opportune spots to hide or blend any ambient shifts. Luckily, this is why a production sound mixer will supply the editor with room tone. A good lesson of this occurs in the first dinner scene in Jurassic Park (with all the great b.g. projections). Shifting ambience in the films of Spielberg, The Great Trumpet of the Empire?? But-wha-huh-how’d-…

Off-Axis dialogue- This may occur if the actor who’s voice is off-axis is also not pictured on screen (a common problem with dialogue outside the frame of close ups, or in the reverse character in an OTS shot). This can be solved through the editor’s careful manipulation of takes (in audio and image), and the knowledge by the filmmaker and production mixer that overlapping dialogue recorded on set, when one or more of the characters may be OS, should perhaps be handled with other cues or silent remarks off camera, or having the production mixer mic any overlapping dialogue (or any other sounds) to clarity.

Excessive Low End and mild frequency disturbances- Depending on the nature of the equipment and location, there may be a bedding of low end mild-rumble, past an aesthetic familiarity (this showing more of the sound’s uncontrolled signal-like nature). EQ will be necessary, a mixing and mastering process will be necessary, editing will be necessary.

A Bad Take. In-line editing- A 100% perfection rate for every recording through out a production is near impossible. Depending on the amount of equipment, help, time and experience available, including with the nature of the set-up depending on these variables, there may be a moment, line, or simply things-in-between-things that may need to be cut out or adjusted, replaced, or redone. Or, in other words, sound editing. The key for a good production sound recordist is to drastically reduce the amount of work necessary by any editor after-the-fact; to get as clean and neutral of a recording while on set. However, there may be that picture-take you really love, but perhaps a plane is going off near the end of that line in the distance, or perhaps any little blah-blah-blah thing in the sound, or the visual take is perfect but perhaps the audio from before last was the best, for whatever reasons. There may be many small equivalents to shots falling out of focus, dolly bumps, missing marks, or whatever other standard each picture-take is held by. Sometimes you cut around these shots, sometimes you embrace the new quality, sometimes there are re-shoots… (so long as most of the time it’s captured spot on). Or in other other words, sound editing.

Things a filmmaker should expect after their clear recorded signal:

A focused sound design- This is prompted from the filmmakers aesthetic vision.
A seamless sound editing- This is separate from the production sound process.
A deliberate sound mixing- This is separate from the production sound and editing processes.
A careful sound mastering- This is separate from all the jobs above.

Five separate steps from thought to signal to final export.

But I’m an artist, I don’t need to know about recorders and knobs and technical numbers like 48.

This is absolutely correct. Those are described as technicians and they’re paid for their knowledge and experience. However, an artist must have a drive for an absolute technical mastery in his craft, to have every aspect of his creation under his complete design (even Godard’s “free-form”/”organic” production method, which I admire greatly, is held by a custom-fit [yet rigid] production method). This is the artisan at work. Pollack famously did not have control for each drip of the brush but proved a consistent command for a Total rhythm, his movementswere always in control.

Know what a good signal is, have a theory for sound perspective, a theory for sound design,
admire great works, your favorite works, of cinematic phonography.

Take careful consideration into the signal recorded, because this signal contains a performance stirred up only on that set that one time, in the rhythm of the production, and will prove to be the working material in which to chisel away from and make the film’s unique sonic foundation.

To not do so invalidates you as a filmmaker completely.
To not do so is to devalue half of your medium.
To not do so invalidates you as a filmmaker completely. Completely.

After several attempts at making short films, where the quality of the image may seem to be getting higher, but yet the sound remains as incompetent as the friend punished to hold the boom, shouldn’t the artist understand, if at any time then, the importance of sound to the picture?

After spending the hours/days/stressful worry completely after-the-fact of production on trying to FIX bad audio (rather than SCULPT a clear signal)… shouldn’t that prove then then as to the importance of sound to the picture?

One can not alter the way the spectator receives a film (no matter how revolutionary one claims to be). Sound is heard, then image seen (Helicopter, then FADE IN to Apocalypse Now).

I understand a lot of people hate doing the work, and it may make someone angry because then they realize they’re not cut to be the artist they fantasize about. But the work has to be done.

What separates you from Jackson Pollack? What separates you from Jean-Luc Godard?

What is Double-System Sound Recording?

Double-system sound recording is the process of recording the sound for a motion picture on a machine that is separate from the camera. This process – with both a sound recording device and camera – dates back to the earliest days of the talking pictures in the 1920s and explains the distinctive “clapper” that Hollywood moviemakers use at the beginning of each shot. If you visit a Hollywood movie set today, you’ll probably still see an assistant holding up a slate in each shot that makes a sharp clapping sound, so later on an editor, “synching up” the separately recorded film and sound, will have a handy reference point where sound and picture match up.

What’s the Alternative to Double-System Sound?

The first alternative to double-system sound (and the crew and logistics of synching sound to picture) came along in1962, when Ikegami introduced a hand-held video camera for the professional that was capable of recording audio and video on one piece of tape inside a single device. Because it meant smaller crews and an end to synching sound to picture, the Ikegami cameras revolutionized TV news reporting and led to the home video cameras that most young filmmakers grew up with. But, even today almost 50 years later, most Hollywood films (and many bigger-budget TV shows) still use the traditional film cameras.

Why Does Anyone Use Double-System Recording Today?

Why do Hollywood filmmakers still use film and the double-system sound recording system?

Hollywood cinematographers will tell you the main reason they still use Panavision and Arriflex film cameras that don’t record audio, even though they’re more expensive and labor intensive, is that the look of film justifies the added expense of shooting double-system.

But isn’t there an alternative to film that looks great and avoids the workflow of double-system sound? With all the advances in digital technology, is it still necessary to have a separate sound recording crew on the set and an editor synching dailies? For a Hollywood movie, the cost of shooting on film and paying for a few extra crewmembers to accommodate double-system sound recording might not be a significant part of the budget. But what about the indie filmmaker?

Can Filmmakers On a Budget Avoid Double-System Recording?

Isn’t there a way to capture high-quality image and sound without a separate sound recorder on set and the money to pay for someone to synch dailies?

If you’re making an indie film and want to use the best technology currently available – the answer, for now, is no.

Things are bound to change and change quickly, but, as of today (July 2010), double-system sound recording still makes sense for most indie filmmakers making feature length films – even those shooting on the latest and greatest inexpensive DSLR video cameras.

What is DSLR Video?

Anyone paying attention knows that the imaging capabilities of inexpensive video cameras are rapidly approaching what traditional analog film cameras can offer. For example, the images from the latest line of DSLR (an acronym for Digital Single-Lens Reflex) video cameras that Canon is making and selling (starting under $1,000 ) are truly stunning in detail, light handling and depth-of-field. Under many circumstances, these tiny devices are making motion picture images that could fool an expert into thinking they were recorded on film by a high-end movie camera.

Don’t DSLR Video Cameras Record Sync Sound?

The Canon DSLR video cameras all record audio. If you’re using the camera to record your family on vacation or opening birthday presents, the audio is more than sufficient. There is a built-in mic in the camera and you can even plug in an external stereo mic. But, because of their small size, the current line of Canon DSLR cameras won’t accommodate a professional XLR microphone jack. And the Canon DSLR cameras have limited ability to monitor or to control the audio. For these reasons (and others) the current Canon DSLR cameras are not outfitted to record sound in a way that approaches the quality necessary for recording multiple actors or many of the other challenging circumstances that arise in feature length filmmaking. So, until Canon improves their DSLR line (or someone else comes up with a better camera), if you’re using a DSLR camera to make your indie feature, I recommend using a separate recording device.

If DSLRs Don’t Have Ideal High Quality Audio Recording Built-In into the Camera, Will Using One Bust My Budget?

The good news is that you can buy a great Zoom digital audio recorder and some good mics for under $1000. The bad news is that you might need an additional person to operate that recorder and you must synch the audio from your Zoom with the image you’ve recorded on your Canon.

Many of you have been making movies for years without the tedium of matching separate audio to picture. I get it. If you’re used to making video with a video camera, the “extra” work of synching dailies and the expense of having a separate sound recorder on set is not part of your usual workflow. But the images from affordable DSLR cameras have just expanded your filmmaking potential. And these cameras (while great at capturing beautiful images without lots of lights or fuss) are weak at capturing sound. And it would be a shame to capture the amazing images you can get out of these cameras, only to have your filmmaking hampered by their obvious limitations in sound recording.

Is There Any Way to Make Synching Easier?

Although I won’t review it in detail here (check for another post on this website), PluralEyes is a nifty and relatively inexpensive ($149) piece of software that was specifically designed to take the drudgery out of synching dailies when you use a video camera and a separate sound recording device. PluralEyes is a standalone application that works in tandem with the Final Cut Pro editing software . PluralEyes performs the neat trick of synchronizing clips by comparing the waveform of the audio track recorded by your video camera with the waveform of your externally recorded audio. In other words, PluralEyes uses the in-camera sound as a reference to synch up with an external recorder. You don’t need to clap (although it doesn’t hurt) or to use timecode. The PluralEyes application simply finds similarities in the two audio tracks and matches them up.

Conclusion?

They create beautiful video at a very affordable price, but until Canon’s DSLR cameras improve their audio functionality, indie filmmaker with dreams of a theatrical release should consider using these amazing cameras only with a separate sound recorder (like a Zoom H4n) and software (like PluralEyes) to synch their footage.

The relationship between ISO and noise level is not as straightforward as many would think.  This graph shows data from tests done at CanonPhotoGroup.com to compare noise at different ISO ratings on the 5D Mark II.  In my testing, the 7D exhibits similar patterns.

This thread on DVXUser further illustrates, this time with the 7D.

I usually shoot at ISO 320 on my 7D with satisfactory results.  If I can spare the extra stop, I will use ISO 160 for a cleaner image.  It is also important to note that at higher ISO ratings, other artifacts besides noise begin to show.  I have heard that these cameras switch to lower bit depths to allow for increased sensitivity but I haven’t seen a technical explanation.

This past winter vacation myself [Dan Watkins] and fellow UCF filmmakers/classmates Christopher Lopez and Edgar Jorge endeavored to complete three short chamber pieces centering around the International Drive/ Magic Kingdom area of central Florida.

Knowing that the nature of such a project would most likely entail staging a small play in a public setting, and attempting to capture both sound and image while remaining as inconspicuous as possible, the only options that seemed to make sense were DSLRs and wireless microphones. With this in mind I ventured on a location scout, ultimately settling on a bus stop located on the non-convention center side of International Drive. The mixture of headlights provided by passing traffic as well as an ominous green light that (inexplicably) bathed the parking lot behind us would not only provide ample source for proper exposure with the Canon 7D, but it would also create a beautiful color palette for the film as a whole.

My cinematographer, Chris Tharp shot the film entirely on a Pentax 35mm f/2.0 lens adapted to fit the Canon 7D. Knowing that this project would ultimately find exhibition on a large screen, he chose to shoot at an ISO no higher than 640 to ensure that the blacks remained rich and virtually free of digital noise.

With the technical aspects considered and accounted for, we addressed the next challenge. The bus stop in question was not only located in a pedestrian heavy souvenir district, but its proximity to International Drive left us only about two and a half feet of space in which to put the camera. If we were still relegated to the light hungry HVX (not to mention its hungrier adapter) we would have had to put the camera in the street to achieve the shots we did. The length of the hardware needed to capture the performance coupled with the lens needed to achieve the desired shallow focus would have landed myself and my crew in harms way of incoming traffic. The only option would have been to shoot on a wider lens, in turn, sacrificing the depth of field, and overall cinematic look of the piece (and we haven’t even begun to light). However, with the 7D, myself and my cinematographer were able to position ourselves extremely close to the actors creating a more intimate atmosphere that I feel is quite visible in the final product. Furthering this sense of intimacy is the lack of hardware separating the actors from those capturing their performances. With larger aforementioned cameras, there exists several degrees of separation, not only in terms of light loss, but also in the sense of person to person interaction. With the smaller DSLRs, filmmakers are able operate in close quarter environments with their actors. This can eliminate the need for built interiors (in lieu of location shooting) which would then , in turn, drive down the cost of the overall production. On a less technical note they also create a stronger connection between the actor and filmmaker if in no other aspect than proximity.

“An Evening (on International Drive, 2010)”
Director: Daniel Watkins
Cinematographer: Chris Tharp
Shot on: Canon 7D with a Pentax 35mm f/2.0 lens

A UCF Directing 1 short film that I [Jon Perez] shot called Nite Boy/Day Girl called for a party scene for one of the segments. Rather than setting up a shoot day and trying to get extras to show up for a “party scene,” we just threw a big party and made it clear that we would be shooting the people dancing inside. This video is a compilation of the Nite Boy/ Day Girl footage.

What’s interesting is that, this video, as well as the film the footage was originally shot for, would just not have been plausible to shoot under the conditions we put ourselves in if we didn’t shoot on a DSLR. The actual weight and form factor of the Canon 7D made it possible to sustain being on a small dance floor packed with drunk dancers.

Nothing is color corrected in any way. Aside from the multi-colored LED strobe, the dance floor was pitch black, meaning, all light emanated from sources within the space that the dancers brought with them (i.e. laptops, glow sticks, cell phones, LED glasses, etc.). In order to expose I shot at ISO 3200, shutter speed at 1/30 and the lens I used, a Nikkor 50mm AF 1.4, was wide open the whole time. Generally it’s very frustrating to deal with, much less try and shoot a film in such unpredictable lighting conditions, yet, it’s exhilarating when chance works out.

This is essentially test footage for UCF MFA student Alex Bowser’s thesis feature film Bad Pixels. Principal photography begins in July and consists of numerous dance party scenes. I wanted to see how far I could reasonably push the camera. People freak out about shooting higher than 800 but from experience, as long as there is a highlight  in the shot (i.e. strobbing LEDS), digital noise is pretty much irrelevant. Even more important to consider is, what is the end use? Theatrical projection, TV broadcast, Youtube? I knew that the Nite Boy/ Day Girl footage end use would most likely be at the Film Department’s end of the year HD screener. Basically I knew that I could get away with pushing the ISO so high because I’m familiar with the way the Blu-Ray streamer and projector handle shadows. Also, the amount of acceptable noise is absolutely contingent on the white balance. From my experience with the 7D, when shooting below 4,000 degrees Kelvin, noise in the red channel is aggrandized to a generally unacceptable point above ISO 640. The native color temperatures of the LED’s being so blue definitely helped me be able to keep the white balance at a comfortable number.

Luckily I was able to pull my friend Dan Watkins, a fellow classmate and student here off the dance floor to help pull focus. Another classmate, Chris Tharp, let me borrow his Zacuto follow focus and Marshall monitor for the night. I quickly explained to Dan that I’d be moving around excessively in unplanned and unpredictable ways. I was shooting wide open on the lens at 1.4 so depth of field was obviously tricky. I just tried to give Dan time with each shot to hit focus and then move on. As we got into more of a groove, he took more of a liberty selecting focus and making decisions.

Credit: Taken from renowned video glitch artist Takeshi Murata's Monster Movie

http://www.takeshimurata.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1f3St51S9I