Can you avoid voice dubbing (post-production) and do direct recording while shooting a film with improved equipment? This would save a lot of time and energy. This would also ensure natural reaction. (You can go for dubbing for real problematic portions only, if required.)

  • 6
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is better suited to Video Production Exchange – Paulie_D Dec 15 '17 at 16:32
  • It's not about the equipment, it's about the skills of the actors, director, and recordists and the realities of the shooting location and time table. Generally, location sound is the cheapest and the best sound, so everyone is highly motivated to make location sound work, but takes are expensive, so if the only problem with a take is that the sound is off, the take will probable be kept and ADR will be used to fix the dialog, since that will save a lot of money in the end. – Todd Wilcox Dec 15 '17 at 23:28

Direct recording is already done, it's just that under some conditions the voice needs to be re-dubbed. This might happen on a windy shoot where sound waves are carried from the mic due to the wind, and the mic may pick up more ambient sound than the actor's voice.

This is what boom mics are used for!

Post-production dubbing is mostly only done for problematic portions, as you stated above, or for using an alternate audio such as a foreign language. Also, post-production dubbing is used for altering dialogue for TV broadcast, when the dialogue would have garnered the movie an R rating.

  • My 'favourite' show for using direct when it really ought to have been looped is Elementary... listen to that expander/gate open & close when they're outdoors... it's painful ;) – Tetsujin Dec 15 '17 at 18:29
  • Lav mics are also commonly used as a safety or in tricky situations. The combination of well-placed lav mics and well-operated booms is usually quite effective, but as you note, not always. – Todd Wilcox Dec 15 '17 at 23:31

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .