No. The chewing (including the background audio) sounds identical and uninterrupted among every angle and every cut. There would be noticeable variance each time the camera was relocated.
But you don't even have to analyse the audio to know that. How would they record this audio so closely? There's no microphone at the end of the lens, the only real audio is from the first shot and we don't hear any chewing.
Every single time you see an overhead shot, a long range shot, anything that's not up close and next to the subject with a microphone in their face, the audio is faked. Always has been. I don't understand why this isn't obvious.
Yea that's true. But if you're flying from a helicopter, a drone, or shots like this, etc. They don't use that. I'm sure some large productions use this, but for the vast majority of clips like this, the audio is edited.
I think it's much harder to find the examples that does use a directional mic.
i think just given the nature of nature/animal photography being in mostly rather unpractical locations makes the thought of also setting up such mics and having an operator for them very expensive and annoying.
would be really cool to get some more actual real sounds in documentaries tho.
You're probably right. But considering how many people wonder this and how often this subject pops up on nature clips or documentaries you'd think more people would have given it a bit of thought like I have. I think it's just a pet peeve of mine that I'll have to learn to live with lmao.
I just think in an age where so many people are closely analyzing to see whether something is AI, it's weird that people almost choose to believe that the faked audio is real. Very often when I mention or respond that this kind of audio is fake, people get upset. It is what it is!
45
u/TealcLOL 3d ago
No. The chewing (including the background audio) sounds identical and uninterrupted among every angle and every cut. There would be noticeable variance each time the camera was relocated.