|
 |
Its simple. You do not have the amount of controll in using completly live
audio from a shoot. There is no way to manage it properly without having a
full mixxing sweet for each shoot which is ecenomicly limiting and not to
mention the problem you get with to creative types (director, and audio
coordinator) bumping heads all the time.
Adding, or dubing sounds in later is a much prefered way. You have more
controll. But yes it must be done with care and just right. Also mixing is
very important as to not make it sound above everything else.
What sets a good and a Great sound track is good mixing and mix down.
Besides, being a virtual 3d stage, all the sounds will be created, and not
live :-)
Mike Norton
http://www.jps.net/manorton/3d
Matthew Bennett wrote in message <01bd8cec$ce953f60$8f3463c3@mrbcomp>...
>David VanHorn <dva### [at] cedar net> wrote in article
><6kl1or$i1k$1@oz.aussie.org>...
>>
><snip>
>> In contrast, what british TV I've seen has had very obvious live sound in
>> outdoor scenes,
>> which sounds (to me) very noisy, muddy, and the actor's voices aren't
>clear.
><snip>
>
>Erm.. exactly how are you generalising the whole of Britain's TV
>production?
>I also don't see the problem using live sound in outdoor scenes, instead of
>adding it in afterwards - so long as volumes etc. are controlled properly
>(which I've never seen a programme that hasn't), I would assume it sounds
>more realistic. When voice-overs aren't done particularly well and the
>actors lips move out of sync with their voices, the end result appears (to
>me) much worse.
>
>As you may have guessed - I'm from England and couldn't resist ;)
>
>Matt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
