I think that the individuals who first made this statement didn't really believe it. My guess is that they were just trying to save money and justify it to the producers. So, unless we're talking about a Walter Murch or a Ben Burtt, this assertion is simply not true.
While it is true that Avid and Final Cut Pro systems have volume and panning automation and effects built-in, the level of control they have over the audio is very limited. When editing sound, very often it is needed to be sample-accurate (which, for standard audio post, would be accuracy to 1/48,000 of a second), to have proper crossfades between separate audio clips. Most video editing systems are only frame-accurate (1/30 or 1/25 a second), which doesn't allow for that level of precision. Furthermore, ProTools, the industry standard for sound editing and mixing, gives the editor the additional capability of redrawing the waveform itself, to eliminate pops and clicks seamlessly without having to cut the audio clip.
As far as "effects", apart from the huge collection of equalizers, compressors, limiters, pitch-shifters, reverbs, delays and noise-reduction processors that ProTools has available from third-party manufacturers, there is the added capability of automating every parameter of every one of them. So, for example, if the mixer wants to equalize a single syllable of a dialogue line differently, he can, with sample-accuracy. So, trying to mix in a video system is a bit like trying to cut a wedding cake with a spoon – you can "do it", but it's definitely not the same.
Another big difference is the listening environment. I've been to enough picture editing suites to know that sound is not a huge concern there – most rooms are noisy with computer fans running and humming outboard gear, and for the most part they are not acoustically treated. Many of them have cheap computer speakers. I've lost count of how many times a client comes to the final sound mix (in a proper sound mixing studio) and goes, "but I didn't hear that when we were editing picture!". Well, that's why. Sound editing and mixing studios have been acoustically analysed and treated, are quiet and have high-quality speakers.
And last, but certainly not least, there is the sound editor or mixer themselves. I know a few picture editors who have great ears, but they just don't know sound tools the way we do, or have done it for a very long time, as we have. Unless someone has devoted their life to learning both crafts (like Murch and Burtt), they only really know what they know. I wouldn't attempt to cut a show without first learning how to use the proper tools and having acquired the knowledge and experience necessary.
Luckily for the sound post community, the advent of HD and 5.1 is forcing more producers to employ a proper sound post team. The stringent specs of surround deliverables and the enforcement of items like dialog normalization call for special attention to detail regarding the sound of the final product. Hopefully this will soon start permeating to even the lowest budget shows.
No comments:
Post a Comment