Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: boom mics

This is topic boom mics in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003018

Posted by Josh Mitoska (Member # 1086) on 01-27-2002, 12:52 PM:

Hello again. I have problems sometimes with the boom mics showing on my screens. I have the right lenses on, is this a problem, with the apature keys, or something else I'm not getting? Most of my projectors don't have keys, just tape on the port glass. I just got this theatre a few months ago, and am trying to redo everything, the equipment is ok, but the theatre was built in 1926-, and now has 2 upstairs screens crammed in where the balchony used to be-

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-27-2002, 01:15 PM:

Speaking strictly from the audience viewpoint, having a boom mic appear at the top of the screen is a very bad thing. Totally ruins the "movie magic" thing for me. This happened in Jurassic Park at the local Cinemark dollar theater -- was mis-framed. I reported it and they fixed it.

Seems like it could be a simple framing issue, or aperture not right. Someone here will have a better answer for you. But you should try to fix it if you can!

------------------
- dave
Stay away from the meadow...

Posted by Ben Stephenson (Member # 741) on 01-27-2002, 02:30 PM:

I have seen a few films with the not so discreet BOOM MIC but the framing is right, may be cheap film making

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-27-2002, 03:03 PM:

Josh, if this is only happening on "flat" films, you do not have the framing centered. Remember, just because you don't see a frame line does NOT mean that a flat film is properly in frame. Tweek it on a green band for a quick and dirty fix.

I wish the labs would at least hard matte the first reel of movies to help keep presentations as a whole in frame.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-27-2002, 03:11 PM:

I have discovered some (but not all) of the flat movies can slightly be mis-framed (if needed) to hide the microphone without too much trouble. On rare occasion, I have done that.

I agree it is poor editing if a boom microphone or any other scene rigging detail shows up anywhere in the frame.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-27-2002, 03:19 PM:

Actually editing has nothing to do with it they can't remove it once it is there. It is sloppy boom operators they are supposed to keep out of the cinematographers frame

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 01-27-2002, 04:08 PM:

What does hard matte mean?

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-27-2002, 04:11 PM:

Hard matting a flat film refers to blacking out the portion of the frame that is not supposed to be projected.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 01-27-2002, 04:15 PM:

"Most of my projectors don't have keys, just tape on the port glass."

Aperture plates aren't all that expensive. You might want to invest in a loop of test film and a few plates. Filing them to size can be tedious, but properly cut plates will eliminate much of the problem.

I don't notice a dedicated manual to filing plates in the tips section. Perhaps someone could do a basic write-up and point out how to avoid the obvious problems - cracked lenses, filings in the works, overcutting, improper alignment, etc.

Alternately, a good tech can do the job of aligning and making plates right in a quarter of the time.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-27-2002, 04:39 PM:

Yeah, Gordon. I used the wrong word. Sorry about that.

Maybe I should have said, "A crew paying inattention to insignificant minor details, in other words, screw-up's by the gross......."

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 01-27-2002, 05:15 PM:

Could there be a problem such as showing Flat(1.85:1) Films in a wrong 1.66:1 or even academy ratio. Josh what aspect ratio do you project flat films at?

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-27-2002, 05:58 PM:

Brad is on to it.... Because the release film format is defined as 1.85/1.66 and the 35mm frame is much higher, you will see all sorts of things on the top and bottom of a mis-framed image. It is sloppy cinematography when a mic or some crew member shows up inside the matt of a properly framed image...and there are several.

>>> Phil

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-27-2002, 08:11 PM:

One thing that can really screw you up here is that if the film is a true 1.85 ratio, and the boom mic still shows on the screen, you are basically screwed. If the 1.85 is racked correctly and you purposely mis-framed just a small amount, it would look like crap with a black bar showing on the bottom of the screen.

What really adds insult to injury is that I have seen many flat prints use a combination of 1.66 and 1.85 frames. If you catch a boom mike or some other back-drop rigging in the picture in a 1.66 ratio, you can "tune it out" with the frame knob. But if the next scene comes along and has the big fat 1.85 frame lines, you are simply out of luck.

Same holds true with 2.35 prints, unfortunately. You can't mis-frame to cover those up without the audience howling.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-27-2002, 08:24 PM:

Why would a director or DP *choose* to shoot full-frame and then print without a hard matte? Is it considered a non-issue because proper framing takes care of it in the projector? Seems like it would be easy to use a hard matte when the prints are made and not have to worry about framing issues. I was pretty surprised to see that boom mic in Jurassic Park. Why not hard matte and be done with it? Enquiring minds want to know.

------------------
- dave
Stay away from the meadow...

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-27-2002, 09:07 PM:

David, I sometimes think it has something to do with how many martoonies they had. And, the number of boom microphones you see in the movie is probably directly proportional to the number of the martoonies that were consumed.....

But seriously, I just wish the 1.85 format would ride off into the setting sun. It has served its purpose very nicely since it was introduced (I believe I have been told) to compete with smellivision.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-28-2002, 03:11 AM:

Others may be able to confirm or deny this, but my guess is that the reason most release prints aren't hard matted is because in order to introduce one you would need to use an optical step printer rather than a continuous motion contact printer at some stage in the duplication process - probably between the fine grain pos and dupe neg generations. This would be more expensive and result in a lower image quality than contact printing through all the generations from camera negative to release print.

The only release prints I know of that are always hard matted are Super 16 'blow jobs' (which have to be duplicated in an optical printer anyway) and animation, where the matte is (presumably) photographed as a black background by the rostrum camera.

Perhaps using an aperture plate in the studio camera of the same ratio to that in which the film is intended to be projected (overcut by a millimetre or two to allow a margin for error) would be the best bet. But as Paul notes, if you do that and then a boom mike still gets into the shot, you're buggered.

Posted by James Robertson (Member # 888) on 01-28-2002, 03:50 AM:

Michael Brown has hit the nail on the head. If the film is shot 1:1.85 and projected 1:1.85 with correct lens and aperture plate-no problem.

It does'nt matter whether the film was shot with 1:1.85 camera aperture,hard matted in the lab. or even if the film was shot using Academy Ratio,if the correct aperture/lens combination is used extra image information including booms,lights etc. will be cropped in projection.

The problem occurs when films are shot using full Academy Ratio but framed by camera operator using ground glass markers in camera viewfinder for 1:1.85. Obviously this leaves a lot of information outside the 1:1.85 frame. Hopefully this information is not critical as it should be cropped in projection.

When a light or boom intrudes into this area, depending on the difficulty of the shot or the fact that it may be unrepeatable the director will go with it knowing that the "offender" should be cropped out if projected properly.

Why shoot Academy Ratio? To accomodate cinemas which don't have proper aperture/lens cominations for 1:1.85. It is an attempt to provide a print which can be shown in any flat ratio.

Of course this creates the problems voiced in this thread.

Incidentally swinging boom on a film set is highly skilled work and we take our cues from the camera operator. He will let you know if your intruding in his frame (sometimes quite forcefully

The problem is trying to provide one print which will satsfy all flat ratios.

Jim

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-28-2002, 04:24 AM:

Paul is right, 1.85 was a bad, bad idea from the get-go -- loosing 1/4th of the film's geography (translate: resolution & brightness) to gain a little width was just a dumb exhibitor idea (they were cropping BEFORE the directors and cinematographers were actually shooting for the cropped ratio -- the studios had to do catch-up). Exhibitors started of with mild crops - 1.55, 1.66 just so their flat picture didn't look so square compaired to the CinemaScope image; they just shelled out big bucks for a CinemaScope screen, and by gum they were going to use it even if it meant compromising -- width vs brightness and image quality; leave it to exhibition to go with width every time.

A "mild" anamorphic to get 1.85 using the full-frame was proposed by Glenn Berrgren (sp?) at ISCO years ago, aptly called ISCOvision, but it went no where.

Dave, usually original camera negs are shot full-frame just because. Actually it makes it easier for video transfering -- less need to loose the sides, and if they are careful to shoot the full-frame with "clean" tops and bottoms out to the frame edges, the video transfer is just straight foward without any need for manipulation.

Originally theatres just used what lenses they had to get a wider image than the Academy "square." So it is not a very good idea to hard matte to 1.85 simply because theatre screen sizing is not always an exact science. Many times the screen aspect ratio can come in at somthing less than 1.85 and for those theatres, hard matted 1.85 prints would play with bars on top and bottom. Europe never accepted 1.85 and still use 1.66 as the norm, so you wouldn't want hard-matted 1.85 prints that would be wrong for the overseas market. Although I have seen a number of films hard-matted right out to 1.85 -- ZEFFERILLI'S ROMEO & JULIET (Paramount) for one.

I find that older films, pre-1975 or so, look just fine in 1.66 mainly because there wasn't a hard change to 1.85 earlier on and the studios kept top and bottom areas clean for the older theatres that were running 1.5, 1.66, 1.75 -- all popular versions of cropped wide screen. Disney, in fact, for years insisted (rightfully so) that 1.85 was too severe a crop for good image quality and insisted that their features all play at 1.75 instead. If you can play a film at 1.66 without seeing set gack, do it. The picture is brighter and the lower magnification makes the grain less visible.

In some cases I have seen them hard-matte certain shots; I assume those shots had set gack that needed to be covered, while the rest of the film is left wide opened.

Do you guys really find current films with boom mics showing at 1.85?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-28-2002, 05:08 AM:

James Robertson writes:

quote:
Michael Brown has hit the nail on the head. If the film is shot 1:1.85 and projected 1:1.85 with correct lens and aperture plate-no problem.

No problem if boom mikes are successfully kept out of the 1:1.85 picture area.

...and Frank Angel asks:

quote:
Do you guys really find current films with boom mics showing at 1.85?

Unusual, but not unheard of. If the print is not hard-matted then as Paul points out, you can get round the problem by racking up or down a bit. But if it is, then either you have to show the boom mike or the matte line.

BTW, the British cinematographer Walter Lassally also called for an end to format chaos by standardising on a 16:9 ratio achieved by a full-height anamorphic frame, only not squeezed to the same extent as 'scope. His article appeared in 'Image Technology' some years ago, and he was talking about the importance of cinema ratios being compatible with HDTV, when it looked like that would become the next major broadcast standard.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 01-28-2002, 08:21 AM:

Another reason not to hard matte is the simple fact that many houses have projectors that are off center of the axis to the screen, either by having the booth somewhere up in the stratosphere or by necessity off to the side. The plates used to get a rectangular image on the screen are anything but rectangular. Having a hard matte image would be a real problem for many locations.

The 1.85 ratio change did serve a good purpose in minimizing the visual distractions of splices. Remember that theatre wet splicers were almost universally 1/4 frame.

Lastly, I can't remember having seen it done, but by having a full frame image, it is theoretically possible possible to "re-frame" a poorly framed shot prior to the release of a film.

IMO, hard mattes aren't a good idea. That and a buck will buy you a cup of coffee.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-28-2002, 08:56 AM:

Quote:

quote:
Lastly, I can't remember having seen it done, but by having a full frame image, it is theoretically possible possible to "re-frame" a poorly framed shot prior to the release of a film.

I guess you'd do that with a contact step printer by programming it to stop at the end of each shot and then having the operator 'reframe' the position of the negative (or fine-grain pos) relative to the raw stock just like you would a projector. The Debrie Matipo printer, which is used widely by archives and specialist labs because it is very good at dealing with shrunken and perf-damaged originals, has such a facility. When I saw one in action (at the National Film and Television Archive, just outside London), the person who explained the process told us that the inclusion of a framing control was to enable the operator to compensate for the shifting position of the original relative to the raw stock caused by shrinkage. So whether it would allow you to shift the frame far enough to get rid of a boom mike I'm not sure.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-28-2002, 09:13 AM:

Even when a picture is intended to be shown 1.85:1, the camera aperture is defined by Standard SMPTE 59, either as 0.866 x 0.63 inches (Style A "Academy"), or 0.981 x 0.735 inches (full frame). This is so any hairs or dirt on the camera aperture don't intrude into the projected image area specified by SMPTE 195 (0.825 x 0.446 inches).

Leo is correct that "hard matting" prints to "force" the framing would require an additional optical printing step to create the wide opaque framelines. Standard SMPTE 195 suggests a hard matte with an image height of at least 0.505 inches.

Every theatre should verify that they are projecting the correct image area for each format by using the SMPTE 35-PA (RP 40) test film:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/notes/spring2001/pytalk.shtml

And do pay attention to framing, in case there is an errant boom mike or lighting fixture visible outside the 1.85:1 image area.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 01-28-2002, 09:37 AM:

As mentioned, most cameras have full academy or even super-35 apertures and the shot is framed in the viewfinder using framing lines etched there.
Adding matting after that requires a step printer, and that is an expensive process used only when necessary for optical effects.
Some films had effects done in vistavision where the larger image area improves the final image quality, and the printed down image is naturally not full-frame. There are probably other reasons to crop during effect processes - it isn't economical to process the image outside the format, but leaving unworked image that could be projected is a bad idea - rotoscope effects for example.
I've seen few examples of unwanted stuff in a 1.85 film shown and framed for 1.85 - but boom mikes, lights, crew members, and off-set areas appearing when a 1.85 film is shown in 1.66 are not uncommon in rep houses or at festivals where the format has been incorrectly indicated or guessed.
I ran a foreign film at a festival where the subtitles were 1.85 but the image was 1.66 - makes for a difficult decision... do I show the proper image and lose the subtitles, or show the subtitles plus the lights and boom above & wires and crew heads below the image? Try to explain this to a Romanian producer through a translator who seems to speak neither English nor Romanian...

(rant warning)
1.85 is a silly format. Trying to get 16 ft-l in a stadium house with a monster screen tends to buckle, emboss, and fade prints. The 7K lamps required are just too hot for 35mm. Then the scope image is way too bright and the flicker is maddening. And Strong's lamp focus mechanism "solution" is a joke. (end rant)

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-28-2002, 09:51 AM:

Someone asked "...why shoot Academy ratio?" The simple answer is 99% of all 35mm motion picture cameras and printers are 4-perf pulldown. Therefore the full 35mm/4-perf frame is exposed even if not used. Hard matting is an expensive and difficult proposition at the camera and the lab.

35mm/3-perf cameras are being used in an effort to cut down on the waste of film. (25% savings in a camera raw stock budget) Features and several TV shows are using this format as well as Super 16 in an effort to trim budgets.

The change in "taking format" will still not help the sacrifice in grain and resolution of the 1.85/4-perf release format. One the plus side, EK has worked wonders with fantastic film stocks!

>>> Phil

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-28-2002, 09:57 AM:

As mentioned, many of the problems with "flat" would be helped by adoption of a 1.5X anamorphic format using the "scope" image area. I presented a paper and demonstration at the SMPTE Technical Conference in Pasadena in 2000 --- "Scope 1.5X, Squeezing Even Higher Quality from 35mm Prints":
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/february97/pytlak.shtml
http://www.smpte.org/members_only/library/download.cfm?file=pytlak.pdf

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 01-28-2002, 11:22 AM:

Josh, what films are you showing. I think in some rare occurences, cheap filmmaking is the case. Some old Sam Fuller films come to mind.

I really agree with Jerry, too. Some aperture plates would be a big boost to your presentation.

Posted by Ray Derrick (Member # 1001) on 01-29-2002, 05:37 AM:

James, nice to hear at least someone sticking up for the boom swingers (I gather you are one). I have many long-time friends who work in the sound recording side of the movie making business and they are all dedicated highly skilled people working against impossible odds to try to capture good location sound. It is clearly the most misunderstood discipline in movie making.

------------------
Ray Derrick
President/Chief Engineer
Panalogic Corporation Sydney, Australia
Phone: 61 (0)2 9894 6655 Fax: 61 (0)2 9894 6935

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-29-2002, 01:22 PM:

Gord,
Actually they could hard matte (wide frame lines) that part of the film quite easily. I still think all flat films should be hard matted so they are run in frame properly. It used to be doone all the time, but I suppose some pencil pusher has nixed all that today.
There are also 1.85 aperature plates made for almost all professional film camers in existance but these seem to be seldom used for flat productions. John mentioned the anamorphic 1.5X system, which is a very good system but will probably never gain wide acceptance as its another lens for the booth monkeys(and camera monkeys for that matter) to deal with, this IMHO is a good reason to see more anamorphic and Super 35 productions being done. The scope aperature also allows far more light on the screen anyway.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-29-2002, 03:35 PM:

The problem with hard matte frame lines is what ratio do you frame it for
1.66:1 would be the safest but then 1.5:1 is closer to the TV safe action area

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 01-29-2002, 03:41 PM:

I could be wrong on this, but I would guess that aperture plate are rarely used in production cameras so that a filmmaker could turn to a full frame camera image for a full frame video release when a pan and scan would not work. I am guessing that they rarely take the time and effort to pull a single shot from the full frame original, but I would imagine that they would want the option there.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 01-29-2002, 03:54 PM:

quote:
Actually they could hard matte (wide frame lines) that part of the film quite easily. I still think all flat films should be hard matted so they are run in frame properly.

This assumes that you dont get projectionist who dosent mind showing the film with a border on the top or bottom. At least with full frame image if it is slightly out of frame there is no distracting border throughout the feature. Just a thought.

Posted by James Robertson (Member # 888) on 01-30-2002, 12:31 AM:

Ray

Thanks for your kind words on boom swingers.

I've been recording sound and boomswinging at ABC.TV for more years than I care to admit. As I mentioned before boomswingers are guided by the camera operator. As others have said in this thread for one reason or another when shooting full frame but for 1.85:1 release booms or other gunk may get it shot. I suspect the decision to allow this to pass is done by the "bean counters"

However there really is no excuse other than in exceptional circumstances for a boom mic. to intrude in a properly projected 1.85:1 picture. If there is no exceptional circumstance then the camera operator/boomswinger liaison ain't working.

Jim

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-30-2002, 12:41 AM:

JAmes R.,

Song of the soundman sung to a Cat Stevens' song --

"I'm being followed by a boom shadow
....boom shadow, boom shadow."

Told to me by an ABC soundman who worked on one of the daytime soaps.

Frank

Posted by Owen Shave (Member # 1156) on 02-17-2002, 07:58 PM:

one suspects that George Lucas came up with his 'digital only' ideas to stop projectionists from racking up/down and cutting his boom mikes out of the projected image... hey.. they must be part of his 'vision', right?!