Discussion
LM240 said:
I’m fairly certain things like ‘Blue Planet’ and similar Attenborough documentaries don’t actually feature the ‘real’ animal sounds.
They are recreated and added later.
And a huge amount of the tight shots are made in controlled environments. Another genre Eric is going to have to boycott out of principle They are recreated and added later.
HustleRussell said:
LM240 said:
I’m fairly certain things like ‘Blue Planet’ and similar Attenborough documentaries don’t actually feature the ‘real’ animal sounds.
They are recreated and added later.
And a huge amount of the tight shots are made in controlled environments. Another genre Eric is going to have to boycott out of principle They are recreated and added later.
Also certain other shows I have been involved with, where things that were 100% genuine and spontaneous get called out as 'set up'. Then on occasion we do set something up, take huge liberties with what people accept as 'real' - and no one questions it at all
TheDeuce said:
HustleRussell said:
LM240 said:
I’m fairly certain things like ‘Blue Planet’ and similar Attenborough documentaries don’t actually feature the ‘real’ animal sounds.
They are recreated and added later.
And a huge amount of the tight shots are made in controlled environments. Another genre Eric is going to have to boycott out of principle They are recreated and added later.
LM240 said:
I’m fairly certain things like ‘Blue Planet’ and similar Attenborough documentaries don’t actually feature the ‘real’ animal sounds.
They are recreated and added later.
I was going to say the same thing. Not to mention, as per other posters, the deliberate set up of certain actions. They are recreated and added later.
Eric Mc said:
Mr_Thyroid said:
Eric Mc said:
Absolutely.
I just hate falsehoods.
I'm not sure he was being entirely honest when he said he agreed with you. I just hate falsehoods.
There's a good episode of the 99% Invisible podcast called The Sound of Sport all about Foley artists in sport - you might find enlightening.
As an occasional maker of film, let me jump in on the whole sound thing.
What you're seeing or hearing is something called 'dubbing'; adding or changing the audio of video in edit. It's been a thing ever since sound was added to film.
Audio is almost always recorded on a separate device to the camera. This is because the source and travel of sound may not be optimal in terms of where the camera is located. Even then, there's a lot you can't control in a setting such as F1. For example...
If the camera is positioned at the entrance of a corner, the mic picking up the audio might be pinned to the fence further along the track to pick up more of the engine note as the car continues off. If the car crashes, the sound of the impact my travel more away from the mic than to it. Wind can also effect this. So what you end up with is a dramatic shot of a car hitting the barrier but sound that appears as if someone has dropped a coffee cup. When viewed together, it doesn't look and sound right. So either the sound that has been captured is tweaked and added in - or sound from another crash that is good is used instead. This is not a simple thing to do as the various peaks on the audio waveform have to match up to visual impacts.
That's neither dishonest or wrong. The crash happened. The sound happened. All that's been done is the audio used on the final cut might not be that which was captured but the combined result is more pleasing to watch. The story remains the same.
Suggesting this is in anyway wrong is rather like suggesting pop stars are faking it on music videos by miming to the songs.
Now, if they were using audio of V10s or DFVs, overlaying this sound to the Hybrids, one might argue that this is dishonest but unless they are implicitly saying that this is what a Hybrid sounds like, it's really only a case of subjective or creative interpretation.
As for rearranging time lines, this too can be permissible if it helps to more clearly articulate the story being told providing that doing so doesn't fundamentally alter the story.
Having watched all of the episodes, I have say from both an F1 and Film Maker's perspectives, they are very very good. The only thing that grates with me are some of the contrived commentary overlays.
What you're seeing or hearing is something called 'dubbing'; adding or changing the audio of video in edit. It's been a thing ever since sound was added to film.
Audio is almost always recorded on a separate device to the camera. This is because the source and travel of sound may not be optimal in terms of where the camera is located. Even then, there's a lot you can't control in a setting such as F1. For example...
If the camera is positioned at the entrance of a corner, the mic picking up the audio might be pinned to the fence further along the track to pick up more of the engine note as the car continues off. If the car crashes, the sound of the impact my travel more away from the mic than to it. Wind can also effect this. So what you end up with is a dramatic shot of a car hitting the barrier but sound that appears as if someone has dropped a coffee cup. When viewed together, it doesn't look and sound right. So either the sound that has been captured is tweaked and added in - or sound from another crash that is good is used instead. This is not a simple thing to do as the various peaks on the audio waveform have to match up to visual impacts.
That's neither dishonest or wrong. The crash happened. The sound happened. All that's been done is the audio used on the final cut might not be that which was captured but the combined result is more pleasing to watch. The story remains the same.
Suggesting this is in anyway wrong is rather like suggesting pop stars are faking it on music videos by miming to the songs.
Now, if they were using audio of V10s or DFVs, overlaying this sound to the Hybrids, one might argue that this is dishonest but unless they are implicitly saying that this is what a Hybrid sounds like, it's really only a case of subjective or creative interpretation.
As for rearranging time lines, this too can be permissible if it helps to more clearly articulate the story being told providing that doing so doesn't fundamentally alter the story.
Having watched all of the episodes, I have say from both an F1 and Film Maker's perspectives, they are very very good. The only thing that grates with me are some of the contrived commentary overlays.
HustleRussell said:
LM240 said:
I’m fairly certain things like ‘Blue Planet’ and similar Attenborough documentaries don’t actually feature the ‘real’ animal sounds.
They are recreated and added later.
And a huge amount of the tight shots are made in controlled environments. Another genre Eric is going to have to boycott out of principle They are recreated and added later.
Gazzab said:
HustleRussell said:
LM240 said:
I’m fairly certain things like ‘Blue Planet’ and similar Attenborough documentaries don’t actually feature the ‘real’ animal sounds.
They are recreated and added later.
And a huge amount of the tight shots are made in controlled environments. Another genre Eric is going to have to boycott out of principle They are recreated and added later.
jammy-git said:
Gazzab said:
HustleRussell said:
LM240 said:
I’m fairly certain things like ‘Blue Planet’ and similar Attenborough documentaries don’t actually feature the ‘real’ animal sounds.
They are recreated and added later.
And a huge amount of the tight shots are made in controlled environments. Another genre Eric is going to have to boycott out of principle They are recreated and added later.
Eric Mc said:
Nope - disgraceful.
End of.
It's called "lieing" - something I abhor. If it's OK with you - fine.
I'm currently producing a series of educational videos for the United Nations. The topic is waste management, specifically in the developing world. Right now, I should be enjoying the delights of a Ugandan dumpsite and next week, traipsing round the waste facilities of Greater Nairobi. Obviously I can't go (well, I could but would be a PIA on the isolation when I get back).End of.
It's called "lieing" - something I abhor. If it's OK with you - fine.
So instead, I'm using a combination of lighting, green-screen, British actors of African origin, a fake Ugandan number plate for a van and Kenyan and Ugandan consumer products (from an Africa Supermarket in Barking) to make a delightful corner of rural Essex in the winter appear like a Ugandan tip in the blazing heat.
This is an educational programme which ranks several notches higher than a documentary.
When its done, you won't see the joins and you would be none-the-wiser (at least I hope so!)
Would you consider that dishonest?
TV and Film is 90% smoke and mirrors. 99% of the time it doesn't matter. The 1% where it does (in a documentary context) is when those smoke and mirrors are used to tell a story that didn't happen but present it as though it did. I'm struggling to see where that applies here.
StevieBee said:
Having watched all of the episodes, I have say from both an F1 and Film Maker's perspectives, they are very very good. The only thing that grates with me are some of the contrived commentary overlays.
Very much this last point. Not exclusive to Netflix F1 but on nearly all Netflix documentaries where they dub a fake news report (or often several) or a dispatch radio etc to help the narrative along. It must be an American thing, but it's really ham fisted and takes you out of the moment and causes you to the doubt the veracity of what you're being told or how it's being angled at you.TheDeuce said:
I provide those controlled environments sometimes. Tough to film a cutaway view of the inside of an otters lair on location in the wild. Far easier to create one up against a perspex panel and film through that
Also certain other shows I have been involved with, where things that were 100% genuine and spontaneous get called out as 'set up'. Then on occasion we do set something up, take huge liberties with what people accept as 'real' - and no one questions it at all
That's similar to music playing software when they create the "random" algorithm. The programmers found that if they get it as close to genuinely random as possible, listeners think it sucks because we pick up on the random patterns that true randomness tends to create. e.g. songs played in the order they are on the album, or same artist played 3 times in a row. So they have to weight the sequence of songs, make it less random, in order to make the sequence feel more convincingly "random".Also certain other shows I have been involved with, where things that were 100% genuine and spontaneous get called out as 'set up'. Then on occasion we do set something up, take huge liberties with what people accept as 'real' - and no one questions it at all
As per the enhanced sounds, are we actually sure they're enhancing them? We're used to hearing the race feed, which is dominated by the commentary. Brundle or Coulthard are nowhere near whatever car is on screen at that moment, so while we may have the feed from the car in the background, we aren't going to pick up nuances like scraping bits of bodywork or crunching carbon fibre when following Grosjean.
On the other hand, when Netflix gets the feed from a trackside camera - and it may well be their own camera, but either way, they can use the audio feed as well as the visuals as that camera picked it up. It may sound completely different and be much richer than what manages to get heard on the normal commentary background, and they've got time to process that sound, perhaps even process it and turn up bits of it, like scraping bodywork, to bring it to the forefront. If the sound is already there - and I am by no means sure it is - that would seem simpler than going to find a sample from somewhere completely different and making it fit.
So maybe we're just not used to hearing it like it is, and our expectations are biased towards what we hear in the commentary. I do remember being amazed in 2014 with the quiet hybrids when I could hear tyre squeal for the first time. Up until then I'd just assumed for some reason Formula 1 cars didn't squeal their tyres.
kiseca said:
TheDeuce said:
I provide those controlled environments sometimes. Tough to film a cutaway view of the inside of an otters lair on location in the wild. Far easier to create one up against a perspex panel and film through that
Also certain other shows I have been involved with, where things that were 100% genuine and spontaneous get called out as 'set up'. Then on occasion we do set something up, take huge liberties with what people accept as 'real' - and no one questions it at all
That's similar to music playing software when they create the "random" algorithm. The programmers found that if they get it as close to genuinely random as possible, listeners think it sucks because we pick up on the random patterns that true randomness tends to create. e.g. songs played in the order they are on the album, or same artist played 3 times in a row. So they have to weight the sequence of songs, make it less random, in order to make the sequence feel more convincingly "random".Also certain other shows I have been involved with, where things that were 100% genuine and spontaneous get called out as 'set up'. Then on occasion we do set something up, take huge liberties with what people accept as 'real' - and no one questions it at all
As per the enhanced sounds, are we actually sure they're enhancing them? We're used to hearing the race feed, which is dominated by the commentary. Brundle or Coulthard are nowhere near whatever car is on screen at that moment, so while we may have the feed from the car in the background, we aren't going to pick up nuances like scraping bits of bodywork or crunching carbon fibre when following Grosjean.
On the other hand, when Netflix gets the feed from a trackside camera - and it may well be their own camera, but either way, they can use the audio feed as well as the visuals as that camera picked it up. It may sound completely different and be much richer than what manages to get heard on the normal commentary background, and they've got time to process that sound, perhaps even process it and turn up bits of it, like scraping bodywork, to bring it to the forefront. If the sound is already there - and I am by no means sure it is - that would seem simpler than going to find a sample from somewhere completely different and making it fit.
So maybe we're just not used to hearing it like it is, and our expectations are biased towards what we hear in the commentary. I do remember being amazed in 2014 with the quiet hybrids when I could hear tyre squeal for the first time. Up until then I'd just assumed for some reason Formula 1 cars didn't squeal their tyres.
What's heard on netflix is definitely embellished a little, they're putting sounds in which would simply be inaudible vs the tyre, aero and engine sound of the cars. That's just standard practice for pre-recorded TV though, everything is polished and tidied up to be presented as well as possible in the edit. It's the same as dragging presenters through make-up... The raw footage is also tidied up and 'improved' in whatever way practical to make it shinier and more impactful before in the final edit.
Teddy Lop said:
Knickers are seriously being twisted over sound effects?
Did you actually watch the show? They took liberties with some of the storylines that the news of the world would have bauked at.
I like the Netflix show, it is very slick.Did you actually watch the show? They took liberties with some of the storylines that the news of the world would have bauked at.
However, I do think that the overdubbed sound is neither realistic or necessary. All TV Co seem to have lapsed into this very cheap genre, where, if it’s a replay, it has to be preceded with an artificial whoosh and end with an electronic bong.
Too many cooks spoil the broth. Keep it simple works.
The next step will be a bit of CGI to show how Croft thought the race might end.
Just because you can, does not mean you should.
rdjohn said:
Teddy Lop said:
Knickers are seriously being twisted over sound effects?
Did you actually watch the show? They took liberties with some of the storylines that the news of the world would have bauked at.
I like the Netflix show, it is very slick.Did you actually watch the show? They took liberties with some of the storylines that the news of the world would have bauked at.
However, I do think that the overdubbed sound is neither realistic or necessary. All TV Co seem to have lapsed into this very cheap genre, where, if it’s a replay, it has to be preceded with an artificial whoosh and end with an electronic bong.
Too many cooks spoil the broth. Keep it simple works.
The next step will be a bit of CGI to show how Croft thought the race might end.
Just because you can, does not mean you should.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff