Voice over work is abundant

Voice over - what for?

  • Wiro

    Posts
    2,781
    Gender
    times
    Location
    Valley of the Red Grape
    wcf.user.option.option32
    APPro CS4, MXO2mini
    Voice over - what for?

    Parallel to two voice-over threads that are currently running in the forum and are intensively involved with the "how is it technical? "I want to open a third thread here:"what for do you need it? ". At the moment I'm not sure whether such a discussion will really lead to anything. Still - I'll try it.

    Voice-over seems to be the magic word in comment editing at the moment, and more and more amateur circles judge editing software by whether it masters this feature or not. Personally, I haven't had the opportunity to work with a really functional voice-over system, but I haven't missed it either. I have therefore entered several times for my own understanding Demo video viewed on the Apple site which shows the Final Cut Pro workflow pretty well. It occurred to me that this voice-over ability can actually be used to "develop" a comment - you can speak out your ideas in sequence, then check whether the length and the message are correct and, if necessary, try again. For the final speaking / recording of the finished comment, however, this method does not seem to me suitable, since it is ultimately a patchwork of loud individual sentences recorded at different times, which absolutely do not match in terms of volume, intonation and speaking speed.

    My idea: develop a commentary via voice-over, but then put the finished mental effusion on paper (text blocks separated by line breaks) and off to the speaker's studio (that's usually us ourselves). Here the text is first recorded in one piece and without seeing the film in perfect technical and linguistic quality, cleared of coughs and other human inadequacies, and as clean WAV files - a separate file for each text passage - back to the editing studio (that's us mostly by myself). Now the "cutter" or "editor" (we usually are ourselves) imports the individual files into the timeline and puts them in the right place. The voice-over files can serve as a guide, but are then deleted or muted.

    In my opinion, this approach would make sense for the voice-over tool - I consider it impractical to use it as a final commentary recording tool.

    What does the forum community mean?
    asks Wiro
    Never approach a computer thinking this will only take 5 minutes
  • @Wiro
    I think, depending on the demands on the final piece of work (forgive the expression), you are more or less right. Sure, the effort to develop the comment itself is most likely to be understood, but even more so if you can actually pay a professional speaker for the task. We used to speak the commentary about the film directly on tape in the editing studio so that the narrator and editor knew what we were imagining and where, and then also in English and German. Even if my comment wasn't that bad, the professional afterwards did better.
    For the amateur film without competitive claim or the technical (educational) film, voice-over is certainly a possibility to get a spoken comment quickly or at all. And if it's just about memorizing details of the sitter for later, more demanding editing attempts - if you did that while shooting, the original sound is lost in the film.
    That with the impeccable, above all speech-technical quality, is reserved for a few anyway. If you speak clearly and articulately, it usually seems unnatural, if you mumble like normal, you can usually forget it. You also have to learn to speak.
    Sometimes very unpretentious greetings
  • The fundamental question seems to be whether it is "blind" speaking
    on tape (PC) is preferable, so that a synchronous connection is only possible later.
    adaptation to the film, or speaking directly to the
    Timeline and on the running video to one - what the sync
    as far as - to have an almost finished product right after the shot.

    Here is a summary of what has proven to be the most comfortable for me
    and has also identified the most determined solution:

    Before the text is written, the film is stopped.
    I.e. I note the times of sequences that have a meaningful context
    have, in some cases, individual settings for the text
    What are important are quotes that are not allowed to appear in text, special ones
    Image or sound effects that either have a special textual effect
    Must be mentioned or, conversely, must be free of text.
    The result is a list of times with brief descriptions.
    This is also called a "time table".
    The time information for this is based on the timecode of the finished one
    Project (i.e. the timecode of the timeline).

    If you later do the voice recording not directly in front of the PC, but rather
    from the PC but in another room, then it is advantageous or
    necessary for creating the time table and also later for the
    Voice recording yourself to have the timeline timecode in the picture.
    With real-time systems, that means just a click of the mouse.

    The creation of a time table is relatively common for TV product
    and is already an integral part of the final work step as the (pre-)
    run of the cut.

    This time table is now the basis for writing. Advantage is that
    you can do the text anywhere regardless of a video source and
    you can no longer find out text lengths with tedious trial and error
    you have to, but you have a direct temporal orientation.

    If the text is written on a PC, then e.g. a font
    art like 'Times New Romance' with a font size of 18 to 20 and


    a line spacing of 1.5 a template that is very legible and
    which at the same time provides an almost universally valid basis for textual
    length offers, with one line of text 4 seconds and one
    DIN-A4 text page corresponds to 100 seconds.
    You can even with handwritten text notes by briefly opposing
    read three or four lines quickly determine how many seconds
    mean one line of text.

    These two processes - creating a time table and using one for orientation
    defined text format - sounds very mathematical, but is actually
    Lich only something like a "preset" so that afterwards you are all the more uncomfortable
    catcher can do the text work.

    With these two "presets", time table and 'text' speed
    ity can be put on text without the need for further aids,
    correct, compose.
    No matter how / what you write, it is always ensured that the timing
    will fit the film quite exactly.

    When the text is ready, it goes to voice recording. Here comes the
    Crucial question:

    Talking blindly or parallel to the film ???

    First of all, speaking blindly.
    Here, too, you first have a choice.
    Blind on a tape, which is then later - as an additional work step! -
    still has to be captured, or blindly, but still directly on the
    PC or in the timeline?

    I tend - whether blind or synchronous - to the method, direct
    speaking in the timeline because it's just faster.
    On the subject of background noise, I have an example in the VegasVideo forum
    given under "Voice-Over".
    If you don't have the highest professional demands on sound quality,
    then a simple close-up microphone with cardioid polar pattern is sufficient,
    to dampen a hard drive or fan, no matter how loud,
    that it is easy to manage this noise in the end through equalizers and
    To eliminate compressor.
    This coupled with the "pillow method" described by Wiro
    at the time of admission - you first have to provide me with evidence to the contrary,
    that for amateur purposes it is necessary to have a separate room
    To have soundproofing for a voice recording.
    If the demands are actually very high, then so should he
    The effort should not be too high for the speaker and the person who
    assumption is NOT the same person and then there would be none
    Reason why the speaker would have to sit in front of the pc, even if one
    would be included directly in the timeline of the project.

    On the subject of "level control" when recording directly into the timeline:
    Either the software can do it, or the sound card, or you can
    the way through a small mixer.
    If the inputs and outputs are suitable, you can add e.g.
    also switch the camera in between and then make the leveling there.
    With the sound example that I linked in the VV forum, I have it
    also made with an intermediary camera.
    No matter how you do it, I'll find the use of a compressor
    a voice recording is actually always quite beneficial and therefore
    the level will be adjusted again anyway.

    Blind or to the picture ???

    Perhaps the "synchronous speaking to the picture" is often a bit wrong.
    Roger that. Because actually this speaking happens less on the
    Content, rather than the timecode that is used in a voice
    usually shows the recording.
    Very often one is not separated from the picture in synchronicity anyway.
    give way, since you can edit the text with the required "presets"
    has put on.
    A look at the picture, i.e. at the time code, is actually only necessary
    manoeuvrable, if you use the time code after a (planned) break in speaking
    wants to capture the next speech entry.

    Again and again I hear a grumbling first because it is so cumbersome
    and one could not concentrate on speaking.
    But then again and again I find out that when you follow this procedure
    played through once under guidance, the same grumbling people
    are haunted by how simple it actually is and, above all, how exact
    you can work with it.

    Assuming this dubbing, it becomes a voice-over, like
    I described it in the VV forum, for child's play and also for one
    very flexible means of making corrections quickly,
    but also to be able to check the result DIRECTLY.

    It has another advantage for corrections:
    With some software, such as VegasVideo, you can use filters
    apply to a whole track.
    So if you always work with the same speakers or if you
    himself is always the only speaker, then it makes perfect sense-
    full that you have a compressor and a
    Equalizer - both with saved settings that are on their own
    Voice are optimized - lays on the two tracks.
    So you can be sure that immediately after the speech
    The sound level and tone characteristics are optimally adjusted.
    Then all you have to do is make mistakes like cough, breath,
    To cut leaves, etc. from the recordings and possibly here
    and add a passage even more precisely.
    You can even adjust the level to match the sound of the film using a setting
    in the compressor (limiter), so this work step later
    can be omitted (because the compressor would already be before the recording
    lying on the trail).

    So I clearly favor the method "synchronous speaking directly
    into the timeline ".

    The thing with writing according to a defined formatting is not a thing
    More effort, the knowledge of the "4-seconds-per-line" even less.
    It even makes composing and correcting text easier.
    The only additional effort is the creation of the time table.

    The recording directly in the timeline saves capturing, it has
    Advantage of faster assessment and faster completion,
    because here all the recording blocks are already placed relatively precisely.
    For me, the possibility of a preroll is also a very big advantage.
    part, because this makes it possible to use the
    the last spoken part directly before (or during) the recording.
    play the same rhythm of speaking, which makes it much easier
    how to find it before you stopped recording.

    Synchronous reading instead of blind reading has the advantage that corrective
    tures that concern the exact placement of a text block only
    rarely become necessary.

    I would like to emphasize again that this description is a bit bad
    It may sound complicated, but that's only because I do this
    wanted to make it as detailed as possible, so that everyone would like to
    can play.
    Getting used to all of the methods mentioned above takes a lot
    fast and personally I don't know anyone who will again
    returned to another method of texting and voice recording
    turns around once he's got used to this one.
    This method is very simple, very quick and targeted as well
    also very precise.

    It is also the common method in all professional production
    houses. Why should this method be reserved for professionals?
    It is NOT because you would need special training to do this
    alone, until not so long ago, there was easy for the amateur
    not the technical possibility to implement something like that.
    However, this has completely changed with the latest software developments.
    changes, so why not try the
    change your own methodology if it could be beneficial.

    Until recently, I also used the principle at home
    HAVE to work "blindly on tape".
    You don't believe how glad I am that this is now over.

    In this sense
  • Hi,

    Here the text is first recorded in one piece and without seeing the film in perfect technical and linguistic quality, cleared of coughs and other human inadequacies, and as clean WAV files - a separate file for each text passage - back to the editing studio (that's us
    mostly by myself).


    I have already written in the other thread mentioned that this corresponds exactly to my approach.

    The text is designed on the basis of the finished video, corrected in test runs, the film being played of course, and then spoken "blindly" in one go.

    It certainly plays a role for me that I don't want to keep my PC wrapped in blankets or pillows.

    Environmental noises (neighbors mowing the lawn, fire brigade moving out, garbage disposal, etc.) also prompted me to work the text at night.

    However: if I had to dub lip-synchronic, only voice-over would come into question.

    greeting
    Tom
    Ahoy from
    Tom

    So one must be upright, not upright (M. Aurelius Antoninus)
    and
    : howl: we remember the genitive ...
  • Wiro

    Posts
    2,781
    Gender
    times
    Location
    Valley of the Red Grape
    wcf.user.option.option32
    APPro CS4, MXO2mini
    Very brief interim remark so that everyone means the same thing:

    We speak Not from lip-synchronous dubbing or from synchronous noises - Voice-Over is perfect for this. However, this is not our "problem".

    Otherwise I have to digest the mammoth contributions first. Then get in touch ;-)))

    Wiro
    Never approach a computer thinking this will only take 5 minutes
  • Wiro

    Posts
    2,781
    Gender
    times
    Location
    Valley of the Red Grape
    wcf.user.option.option32
    APPro CS4, MXO2mini
    @ Avalon

    >>> The fundamental question seems to be whether "blind" speaking (...) Is to be preferred (...) Or speaking directly on the timeline and on the running video. . . <<<

    D'accord, Marco, that's ultimately what it's about - or whether the advantages of voice-over are so serious that you should change your way of working. You write so confidently that anyone who has tried it won't want to do anything else. Maybe you really have to work with it first.

    The most complex work of film commentary has always been the creation of the time table (we have an Excel table that automatically converts the time code into scene lengths) and later cleaning up the spoken text. Developing the comment is relatively quick, as we have also been using your method 18-point = 1 line = 4 seconds for a long time. Nothing changes in that, regardless of whether it is blind or voice-over.

    The finished comment is sent by email (as a Word document) to the speaker (club colleague, depending on the case), who, without knowing the film, speaks the text into an audio editor - either directly or indirectly via tape , depending on the tech. Possibilities. There, the recording is brought up to scratch, saved in individual files and burned back on CD. At the editing suite, the files are simply imported into the timeline and moved to the right place - that's it. Everything else has already happened in the audio editor, so the "cutter" does not have to deal with the speaker's "coughing" and the time-consuming cleaning up of the voice recording. External audio editors are the best conceivable means for this, which is why Adobe has so far steadfastly refused to include a high-quality audio tool in Premiere ;-)))

    I consider our workflow to be good and fluid. If I came up with the idea of ​​switching to voice-over, I would only see the complex "external" commentary work being relocated back to the editing suite. I could already cut the next film during this time. Well, is not to be taken that seriously - we are not that busy either ;-)))

    External greetings
    from Wiro

    PS: I once again strained my relationships with the "broadcasters" (school friend at ZDF): they sometimes do it like me (original text: classic method), mostly like you - depending on how "modern" the editors are . But - so I learned - usually and mainly of course via voice-over directly from the speaker's booth to the Avid timeline. The "old-fashioned" method is actually only used when no modern "voice-over system" is available.
    Never approach a computer thinking this will only take 5 minutes
  • For "synchronous" speaking.

    I probably used this term in a somewhat ambiguous way. I also did NOT mean lip-synchronous speaking.
    However, we use the term "synchronization" for all types of voice recordings, probably because it means that the spoken text should at least be in sync with the image seen in terms of content.
    For example, the part of the recording studio that is only used for more complex voice recordings for documentaries and feature films is called "dubbing studio" by us.
    I don't know whether this designation is universally valid in any way, I almost doubt it ...

    When it comes to lip-synchronized dubbing of film sequences, a completely different approach is usually taken, whereby it is also essential that the editor shifts these dubbed takes exactly onto the picture again (as a completely independent work step), because then you have to work exactly to 1 to 2 frames. Nevertheless, the recordings are already made to the running video / film.

    Especially with feature films, however, here in Germany you try to have a sound as early as possible during the shoot that does NOT have to be dubbed, and so the actors' disposition often means that there is no date for dubbing at all could (and the budget often does not plan this case either).
    When the jackhammer roars at the location next door, then nothing else remains than in the evening, when the craftsmen are working on shift, simply blindly recording passages of text on site again (this is then called "followers").
    The editor will then be incredibly happy, because that sometimes means that you have to move every single word of a sentence until you have recreated a really synchronous and fluid sentence.
  • Hello Wiro,

    the argument that busy editing suites would only be burdened more by the possibilities of a voiceover is not so absurd.
    I know this problem all too well from my work at the SR.
    However, the voice recordings there, which do NOT take place at the editing suite, are still made according to the voice-over principle. Then from a sound engineer.
    This then happens at a special sound processing station, where the equipment is designed to synchronize a video player.

    This principle is actually nothing new, therefore not a "magic word" of a new generation. It has already been done with film, with electronic video, my first digital editing system (DraCo) was able to do that 6 or 7 years ago (but it couldn't do 237 other important things) and now this feature has also established itself in other common video editing programs , but because people want it too.
    The only thing that is relatively new is that it is integrated into SCHNITT software; in the past, such a feature was reserved for good sound programs. The methodology for voice recording remained the same.
    This also makes it quite clear that this is a breeding ground for the shift in a job profile. The cutter as a "girl for everything".
    But that was already ushered in with the electronic editing stations, to which the speaker's booth was also attached to prevent the editor from editing the next contribution.
    But if you do film productions privately in a "one-man operation" anyway, then that's okay too.

    I do not want to claim that anyone who tries it will certainly be enthusiastic about it, I just meant that I have already experienced it myself with different people.
    And since I know many other methods and have already used them myself, I am absolutely convinced of the efficiency of this methodology.
    It's not that different and not as complicated as it might sound in a description - without being able to demonstrate it.

    I also deliberately formulated my posting somewhat insistently, because it is very difficult to get someone to abandon a well-known method and take a new path. I feel the same way myself.
    So if someone really tries it out, maybe three or four times in order to be able to acquire some routine, and if he THEN says:
    It's too complicated for me, I'm going back to my old method - OK, there's nothing to say against that. Then it is your own preferences that it makes no sense to talk someone out of.
    But if someone claims that a voice-over methodology is ineffective without ever having done it yourself, then I object with monster emails ...

    Of course, it doesn't always make sense to look for the fastest and most effective way, because with every new feature of a software you might have to reorient yourself.
    Anyone who is thoroughly satisfied with the route via camcorder recording without an image template, why should they do it differently?
    If you are curious and value the economization of the cut, you should try voice-over.
    Anyone who can discover advantages in this must weigh for themselves whether it makes sense to consistently get used to this other method.
  • One thing that I consider to be a major disadvantage of the "blind on tape" method.

    You have no guarantee that the recorded text REALLY corresponds to the speed with which you previously did a rehearsal.
    But if you spoke too slowly during the recording compared to the rehearsal, there are two image or sound events somewhere in the film that you should have hit with the text and you had no pauses between these two events - what do you want to do then?
    The simplest example of this is a text passage between two original sounds, where the voice recording is 1.2 seconds too long and rattles into the original sound.
    Then you could either edit this long spoken passage with a pitch filter (and you quickly reach the limits of what is feasible), or you have to unpack the camcorder again, reconnect the micro, record, capture, create ...

    During voice-over: problem recognized - problem eliminated (within seconds). Two clicks of the mouse and a new recording begins.
  • Wiro

    Posts
    2,781
    Gender
    times
    Location
    Valley of the Red Grape
    wcf.user.option.option32
    APPro CS4, MXO2mini
    Hi Avalon,

    "Insistent" postings are not necessary! If I wasn't very interested in switching to this method of dubbing, I would not have started the thread at all.



    Wiro
    Never approach a computer thinking this will only take 5 minutes
  • Hello Wiro,

    I was meant to be a bit apologetic, because I know that my postings sometimes sound a bit determinative.

    Do you have the opportunity to try this method out - or - have you already been able to test it?
  • Wiro

    Posts
    2,781
    Gender
    times
    Location
    Valley of the Red Grape
    wcf.user.option.option32
    APPro CS4, MXO2mini
    @ Avalon

    Actually, when I opened the thread, I thought of a lively discussion about the pros and cons of voice-over - that is, whether a change could also become a matter of course for us in the future. Unfortunately, the thread quickly slipped into a lesson for Lieschen Müller - very unfortunate.

    The fact is that none of my fellow filmmakers currently has a perfectly functioning voice-over system that could refer to the setting methods that have been used in the amateur field up to now. The emphasis is on "perfectly functioning" - the mere technical possibility for this is far from the long-awaited dawn in the filmmaker's firmament. If Vegas Video, MSP6.5 and the like are now preparing to change this, it will be very gratifying. To pretend that all of this is old hat, which we just didn't know about, I think is very arrogant and not conducive to a fruitful discussion.

    Head-swaying greetings
    from Wiro
    Never approach a computer thinking this will only take 5 minutes
  • Merlin

    Posts
    779
    Gender
    times
    Location
    Basel
    wcf.user.option.option30
    Sony HDR-HC9E, Sony PC110E
    wcf.user.option.option31
    STEG Cooler Master
    wcf.user.option.option32
    MAGIX Pro X4
    For me, as Lieschen Müller, it was still interesting to read along.

    nodding greetings
    Merlin
    "When the wind comes, some build protective walls and others build windmills"