Issue link: http://digital.copcomm.com/i/1335010
24 W I N T E R 2 0 2 1 I C A S Q U A R T E R L Y partly because this was the opening scene of the film and he did not want to do ADR. I worked with the board operator to find the quietest settings that we could and to program them in zones so that those not being used could be turned off completely. However, this was far from silent and the director was still not happy. I told him that in my opinion, the scene would be salvageable in post but he needed reassurance. I brought in a CEDAR DNS1500 and demonstrated by processing the left side of the mix and leaving the right side unprocessed for post. By not processing the ISO tracks, and also delivering a raw mix track, the sound editors were then able to finally apply any noise reduction in post. Another example was on Gravity. The cameras and Sandra Bullock were both on robotic arms, which made a low-level sound on movement. I was able to remove this from the mix without interfering with Sandra's important breath sounds. KU: I have had editors use a noise-reduced track from production with the understanding that ADR may be needed. The noise reduction was a practical solution to creating an audible work track that everyone could understand. In this case, we recorded ADR for a few of the lines, saving as much production as possible, and the client was very happy. When you were the production mixer, can you share how post sound reacted to your on-set noise reduction usage? Do you believe it is necessary in your line of work when considering your deliverables? ST: I think if you are going to use noise reduction in the field, you have to turn over a clean unprocessed copy as well and label each track clearly. I can see a situation where the dialogue editor edits the dialogue using the cleanest tracks and delivers them to the stage with the re-recording mixer getting upset that the noise reduction wasn't left to them. Re-recording mixers are in the best environment and have the experience getting great results using noise reduction. In the field, we just don't have the time or environment to do it well. DM: This should be an option presented to every client to help optimize the post process. CM: I think it is necessary to give the director a guide of what may be achievable. Post-production has always been supportive knowing that it is non-destructive and that raw files are always available. WN: I have always had positive feedback from picture editorial and sound editorial. One of the first times was on The Fate of the Furious, when I was just demoing the CEDAR and there were special effects rigs that were challenging. Picture post enjoyed having the opportunity to use the processed track if needed. Recently on Hillbilly Elegy, both picture and sound post enjoyed the processed track as a guide if they needed it. Often, I will note on the sound report to check the processed track. NoiseAssist by Sound Devices iZotope RX How about if you were on the post side? What is your overall opinion and advice? ST: Leave it for post. I'm concerned if we make noise reduction so easy to use in the field, it will be misused or overused. DM: I have been presenting the new integration of technologies into my pre-production discussions with producers and clients. I would strongly advise every sound mixer to consider this option for their clients. CM: I do not feel it is necessarily appropriate for me to comment here but, as I have mentioned, I believe it is important to use noise reduction non-destructively so as not to restrict how post can work with the raw audio. Similarly to how I try to use as little EQ as possible, apart from a little low pass. KU: I feel pretty confident in saying more post audio teams would prefer unprocessed materials. If a noise-reduced track was used for dailies, that should also be delivered to audio post so we can hear and have access to what the client is accustomed to hearing. My overall opinion is that I prefer to have unprocessed source materials and prefer the client to be accustomed to at least a more natural sound versus a possible heavy-handed noise-reduced track. Thanks to our participants for sharing their knowledge and experience. I've learned a good bit and look forward to seeing how this conversation evolves as new technologies and techniques are developed.