Is anyone thinking about foley work?
I've always wanted to do some of that.

I've got a decent reel deck, and can get my hands on all sorts of stuff on a
"loan" basis.
(might be a good excuse to buy a Nagra :)

Post a reply to this message

David VanHorn <dva### [at] cedarnet> wrote:
: Is anyone thinking about foley work?

  Can you explain what does that mean? (my dictionary doesn't know the
word "foley")

-- 
                                                              - Warp. -

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Mika wrote in message <6kkv9p$ht2$1@oz.aussie.org>...
>David VanHorn <dva### [at] cedarnet> wrote:
>: Is anyone thinking about foley work?
>
>  Can you explain what does that mean? (my dictionary doesn't know the
>word "foley")
>
>--

Foley is making sound effects that are in sync, (time and space) with the
action
on the screen. In most american movies, the sounds that you hear in addition
to
the dialog are all foley work.  The sound adds a tremendous amount to the
whole
production.  Turn off your TV sound for a while and see.

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.

There's a whole range of things that are used to create the sounds,
sometimes it's what
you think it is, often not.   Breaking fresh celery can be the sound of
breaking bones.

Post a reply to this message

I learnt something there.
Maybe you want to join the music and sound effects team in the Internet Movie
Project.
Cheers,
Al.


David VanHorn wrote:

> Foley is making sound effects that are in sync, (time and space) with the
> action
> on the screen. In most american movies, the sounds that you hear in addition
> to
> the dialog are all foley work.  The sound adds a tremendous amount to the
> whole
> production.  Turn off your TV sound for a while and see.
>
> 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.
>
> There's a whole range of things that are used to create the sounds,
> sometimes it's what
> you think it is, often not.   Breaking fresh celery can be the sound of
> breaking bones.



--
ANTI SPAM / ANTI ARROSAGE COMMERCIAL :

To answer me, please take out the Z from my address.

Post a reply to this message

David VanHorn <dva### [at] cedarnet> 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

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$8f3463c3@mrbcomp>...
>David VanHorn <dva### [at] cedarnet> wrote in article
><6kl1or$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