Issue link: https://digital.copcomm.com/i/1277927
C A S Q U A R T E R L Y I S U M M E R 2 0 2 0 23 the Way We Mix Production? A n O p i n i o n P i e c e b y D e v e n d r a C l e a r y C A S THE ARGUMENT FOR BOOM USE ONLY What a dream this would be? What a simplification and consolidation of duties that would allow my team and me to focus more on contributing our technical skills to the overall artistic nuances of the job. We would have way less frequencies to coordinate inside our shrinking spectrum, we'd really get to hone- in on the task at hand and my utility sound technician would be allowed a lot more leeway with time management and not get spread so thin. What a dream? What makes this possible is that this approach was how it had to be done for years, mainly because of a technique status quo and a limited scope in robust RF equipment options. Pulling out radio mics in years past was as rare as the camera department pulling out the Weaver Steadman. What a dream! What a satisfying feeling it would be to walk away from a hard day's work only having listened to brilliantly positioned boom microphones workflow to booms only is how it would simplify our portion of time allotment with the production. No more coordinating time for each speaking cast member to get outfitted with radio mics, plus fewer contact points with cast. No more negotiating with the costume department on how much we potentially see a mic or a pack. This would ultimately be a huge relief of workload on our already typically understaffed department on scripted projects. It would be a wonderful experience to boom everything, plant when needed, get a wild line when needed, and kick back and live the dream. THE ARGUMENT FOR CONTINUING TALENT RADIO MIC USE The reason I used the word "dream" so many times in that last argument is because that is a dream … a pipe dream. There is no way this is going to fly. And as a huge proponent of booming everything every day, I can still attest to the fact that radio mics are not going anywhere. In years past, booms were the primary and sometimes only means of capturing the dialogue. But that doesn't mean that we could do it that way today. Directors don't design shots and scenes like they used to. Not only did they design shots that were often simpler, but they also took longer to pull off than today. Shots are not planned to be complicated. Shot are constructed as a way to progress, evolve, and innovate narrative storytelling. No one thought: "We have lavs now so let's design this crazy walk-and-talk down the spiral staircase and through the spaceship ending on a high wide." Then, sound departments stepped- up and adapted to the changing tides and found various solutions, including (but not only) radio mics in order to tell the director, "Yes, we can get that, you won't have to ADR that." during close-ups and brilliantly positioned specialty plant mics and never, ever hearing a lavaliere mic? Essentially, booms still sound better and more natural. Lavs available in decades past were more unmistakable in how differently they sounded versus the boom. Currently, we do have lavs that are more dynamic than ever. Tiny microphone capsules that amazingly capture near- field dialogue without mismatching—and the listener will never know how tiny they are. I may sound like I'm already cross- examining this portion of the discussion, but I promise I'm still litigating for the boom- only defendant. Even though lav mics from many manufacturers sound "better" than they did two decades ago, they still don't sound quite like a well- positioned boom microphone. This natural cinematic ear candy is the best way to capture this material, and is still what translates best to the screen. But my closing argument in favor of switching our