Forum: origin of "mos"

Posted by Rick Horne on May 15, 1998 at 10:37:56:
I am an educator here at Full Sail Real World Education.There seems to be an
ongoing argumentover the origination of the productionterm "MOS." If anyone can
shed some lightit would be most appreciative.RegardsRick HorneCourse
DirectorSound for Motion Pictures and Television

Posted by Rob Young on May 17, 1998 at 14:38:35:
In Reply to: mos posted by Rick Horne on May 15, 1998 at 10:37:56:
This can't be verified anymore than "mitout sound" but I was told that mos
orginated from the days when the sound mixer controled the camera motor as well
as the recorder from the sound truck. The AD would say "this is a motor only
shot" thus "mos". Not nearly as colorful as the other version.Rob Young

Posted by Carl Warner on May 16, 1998 at 08:14:22:
In Reply to: mos posted by Rick Horne on May 15, 1998 at 10:37:56:
Hi Rick:The story concerning where the term "MOS" came from is a Hoyllywood
legend.  It is generallyaccepted as fact.  The legend explains "MOS"as the
result of instructions from one of theearly Jewish film directors.  He spoke
English with a heavy jewish accent, and shouted to an AD, "Ve do this Mit out
sound".  Thus. "MOS".Carl Warner

Posted by Kevin Powell on May 16, 1998 at 06:33:38:
In Reply to: mos posted by Rick Horne on May 15, 1998 at 10:37:56:
: There seems to be an ongoing argument: over the origination of the
production: term "MOS." If anyone can shed some light: it would be most
appreciative.Lesson 1:Pronounce "sir, may I see your invitation please" with a
heavy German accent.Watch True Lies to check your pronunciation.Lesson
2:Pronounce "Fritz" with a heavy German accent.Now watch an Indiana Jones
movie. Pay attention to what happened to the "i" in Fr-i-tz.Lesson 3:Pronounce
"without sound" with a heavy German accent. Use your knowledge of lesson 2.What
did you say Rick? Could you repeat that please?"mitout sound"Very good! There
you have it; you've said: "Mit Out Sound". A director with a heavy German
accent mispronounced the word "without" in the thirties.It is a very bad idea
to shoot scenes without sound by the way.Kevin Powell

Posted by citizendoug on May 25, 1998 at 20:10:50:
In Reply to: Re: mos posted by Kevin Powell on May 16, 1998 at 06:33:38:
Frankly, I'm suprised at you guys.Mr. Warner at least should remember that pre
mag tapelocation was most commonly recorded optically either via a synchronous
motor driven second system or the exposure to thewas made in the (news) camera
controlled via an external console. The point is an editor or chemist wouldlike
to know whether or not a shot required the extrastep of syncing the optical
sound and adding it to theprint in question. MOS meaning there wasn't one to
worryabout. These are the lies that make bad interns worsesound men.

Posted by citizendoug on May 25, 1998 at 20:12:16:
In Reply to: Re: mos Minus Optical Stripe posted by citizendoug on May 25, 1998
at 20:10:50:
: Frankly, I'm suprised at you guys.: Mr. Warner at least should remember that
pre mag tape location : was most commonly recorded optically either via a :
synchronous motor driven second system or the exposure to the: was made in the
(news) camera controlled via an external : console. The point is an editor or
chemist would: like to know whether or not a shot required the extra: step of
syncing the optical sound and adding it to the: print in question. MOS meaning
there wasn't one to worry: about. These are the lies that make bad interns
worse: sound men.

Posted by Carl Warner on May 18, 1998 at 11:59:01:
In Reply to: Re: mos posted by Kevin Powell on May 16, 1998 at 06:33:38:
Kevin is right on!  During my career in productionsound I was often notified
that scenes were to be shot MOS, then when the producer and directorviewed the
dailys they realized the error of theirstupidity.  Even very simple scenes like
actorsentering a car, with the door opening and closingthe actors foot steps
and other incidental fx,production sound is usually quite better than Foley.
Question for you Kevin:  I still recordroom tone and ambience.  Was told
recently by ayoung director from the West Coast that we in the East Coast are
behind the times, the Hollywoodmixers do not do that anymore. The director
informed me that it takes too much time so nowit's done in post with computer
fx equipment.  Doyou still record room tone and ambience????Carl warner   : Now
watch an Indiana Jones movie. Pay attention to what happened to the "i" in Fr-
i-tz.: Lesson 3:: Pronounce "without sound" with a heavy German accent. Use
your knowledge of lesson 2.: What did you say Rick? Could you repeat that
please?: "mitout sound": Very good! There you have it; you've said: "Mit Out
Sound". A director with a heavy German accent mispronounced the word "without"
in the thirties.: It is a very bad idea to shoot scenes without sound by the
way.: Kevin Powell

Posted by Kevin Powell on May 19, 1998 at 10:12:43:
In Reply to: Kevin, how right you are!!!! posted by Carl Warner on May 18, 1998
at 11:59:01:
: Question for you Kevin:  I still record: room tone and ambience.  Was told
recently by a: young director from the West Coast that we in : the East Coast
are behind the times, the Hollywood: mixers do not do that anymore. The
director : informed me that it takes too much time so now: it's done in post
with computer fx equipment.  Do: you still record room tone and ambience????I
think it is a good idea to record room tone since your setup is probably
extremely quiet. (There is a difference between a recording of the noise in a
room and a recording of the noise in your mic/preamp). It is still possible to
use a background room (tone) from the library.Two weeks ago I saw a new movie
in the theater. It wasn't a special effects movie. 75% of the time I was
watching (real) rooms. (The shots didn't really make room for sound, but, that
is an other problem). My problem was all rooms sounded equal. I couldn't hear a
difference in size, location, maybe how old or dirty or poor or fashionable the
room was, and so forth. It isn't really interesting to listen to one static
room tone for, say, one hour. So I wondered who post production did and in the
meantime I found out post was done at a studio in Burbank CA. Fortunately I
have the private address of the director and I'll send him a letter. Maybe he
will listen or even reply...Kevin Powell

Posted by Douglas Tourtelot on June 27, 1998 at 01:24:33:
In Reply to: Re: Regarding Room Tone posted by Kevin Powell on May 19, 1998 at
10:12:43:
FWIW: Here's what I have been told by some rerecording guys of late (and
admittedly on MOWs and such):  They claim to be able to get a good sample of
the tone at the point between the sticks and "action" and just loop it up into
the right length.  This makes a great deal of sense to me because the tone will
always sound exactly like the scene that it is needed to backfill, aqnd all the
variations from setup to setup will be available.I will still take a tone of
something unusual (or is that unusable?) like rain on the roof for one closeup,
or traffic at rushhour for that scene that was supposed to be done by 1PM.But I
have never, in recent years, had an editor call me to say that he needed more
tone.  Temp VOs, yes, but tone, no.: : Question for you Kevin:  I still record:
: room tone and ambience.  Was told recently by a: : young director from the
West Coast that we in : : the East Coast are behind the times, the Hollywood: :
mixers do not do that anymore. The director : : informed me that it takes too
much time so now: : it's done in post with computer fx equipment.  Do: : you
still record room tone and ambience????: I think it is a good idea to record
room tone since your setup is probably extremely quiet. (There is a difference
between a recording of the noise in a room and a recording of the noise in your
mic/preamp). It is still possible to use a background room (tone) from the
library.: Two weeks ago I saw a new movie in the theater. It wasn't a special
effects movie. 75% of the time I was watching (real) rooms. (The shots didn't
really make room for sound, but, that is an other problem). My problem was all
rooms sounded equal. I couldn't hear a difference in size, location, maybe how
old or dirty or poor or fashionable the room was, and so forth. It isn't really
interesting to listen to one static room tone for, say, one hour. So I wondered
who post production did and in the meantime I found out post was done at a
studio in Burbank CA. Fortunately I have the private address of the director
and I'll send him a letter. Maybe he will listen or even reply...: Kevin Powell

Posted by Mark Rozett on May 18, 1998 at 23:01:44:
In Reply to: Kevin, how right you are!!!! posted by Carl Warner on May 18, 1998
at 11:59:01:
Hey Carl -If I can put my two-cents in as a "West Coast" rerecording mixer, I
LOVE it when you guys record room tone and ambience.  Although there will
invariably be layers of "FX" backgrounds, there is NOTHING (computer generated,
or otherwise) like the actual production ambience to smooth dialogue --
especially in noisy locations or with reverse angle sequences which have
different ambiences associated with the two shots.  Having access to production
ambience to "back-fill" those sequences by the sound editors has no equal.  And
for the rerecording mixer, it makes his life SO much easier and the final
result smooth and professional.  Keep on shootin' 'em!MarkP.S. - Why NOT always
record sound -- regardless of the shot or conditions?  If nothing else, it can
serve as a guide track.

Posted by Randy Thom on May 19, 1998 at 20:35:13:
In Reply to: Regarding Room Tone & Ambience posted by Mark Rozett on May 18,
1998 at 23:01:44:
: Hey Carl -: If I can put my two-cents in as a "West Coast" rerecording mixer,
I LOVE it when you guys record room tone and ambience.  Although there will
invariably be layers of "FX" backgrounds, there is NOTHING (computer generated,
or otherwise) like the actual production ambience to smooth dialogue --
especially in noisy locations or with reverse angle sequences which have
different ambiences associated with the two shots.  Having access to production
ambience to "back-fill" those sequences by the sound editors has no equal.  And
for the rerecording mixer, it makes his life SO much easier and the final
result smooth and professional.  Keep on shootin' 'em!: Mark: P.S. - Why NOT
always record sound -- regardless of the shot or conditions?  If nothing else,
it can serve as a guide track.Dear Everybody:Another two cents on room
tone.......Yes, there are lots of "room tones" and "outdoorairs" available in
libraries, but in certain kindsof scenes the last thing you want to do is to
addANOTHER layer of ambience/noise to what is alreadythere in the production
track.  Sometimes thebackground noise is already louder relative to thedialog
than would be optimal.  In those situationswhat you need is exactly the same
kind of tone/noise that exists in the actors' dialog so that youcan use it to
smooth out transitions between, let'ssay, a shot of actor #1 which was done at
9am, anda reverse on actor #2 which was done at 10:45 whenthe background noise
had changed. You need roomtone/air that matches Actor #1's track and
anothertone/air that matches Actor #2's track so that youcan gracefully "ramp-
out" of the first and into thesecond in the dialog pre-mix.If you simply try to
mask the discontinuity in airsby adding a library air on top of both then
youmay be making the scene more noisy than theDirector wants it to be, and more
noisy than itneeds to be. All of these, of course, are dialog editing
issues.The sound effects dept. will no doubt be supplyinga set of stereo
ambiences which THEY think enhancethe scene, and which may happen to mask
thediscontinuities in the production dialog air.  Theymay or may not get used
in the final mix.  So thedialog editor can't necessarily count on them
tohelp.Randy

Posted by Randy Thom on May 18, 1998 at 21:10:45:
In Reply to: Kevin, how right you are!!!! posted by Carl Warner on May 18, 1998
at 11:59:01:
: Kevin is right on!  During my career in production: sound I was often
notified that scenes were to be : shot MOS, then when the producer and
director: viewed the dailys they realized the error of their: stupidity.  Even
very simple scenes like actors: entering a car, with the door opening and
closing: the actors foot steps and other incidental fx,: production sound is
usually quite better than : Foley. Question for you Kevin:  I still record:
room tone and ambience.  Was told recently by a: young director from the West
Coast that we in : the East Coast are behind the times, the Hollywood: mixers
do not do that anymore. The director : informed me that it takes too much time
so now: it's done in post with computer fx equipment.  Do: you still record
room tone and ambience????: Carl warner   Dear Carl:That young director is
wrong.Somebody has obviously been telling him exactly whathe wanted to hear,
and he was dumb enough to believethem.Regarding MOS, though, in all honesty I
have toadmit I think that occasionally (rarely) it's appropriateto shoot camera
without sound.  But it depends onthe movie.  All movies can't be approached in
thesame way in terms of sound.  The scenes in themovie "The Black Stallion" in
which the boy ison the island are some of the greatest momentsin film sound.
They were all shot with no sound.Alan Splet had about a year to invent sound
for them,though, which is definitely a luxury we don't seemto have any
more.Randy

Posted by Kevin Powell on May 22, 1998 at 12:33:41:
In Reply to: Re: Kevin, how right you are!!!! posted by Randy Thom on May 18,
1998 at 21:10:45:
: The scenes in the: movie "The Black Stallion" in which the boy is: on the
island are some of the greatest moments: in film sound.  They were all shot
with no sound.I can imagine. Even some scenes in the soundtrack are almost MOS.
On the island you rarely hear three or more effects mixed together. I loved
it!!! Especially the snake. I'm impressed.Kevin Powell

Posted by Kevin Powell on May 20, 1998 at 07:55:49:
In Reply to: Re: Kevin, how right you are!!!! posted by Randy Thom on May 18,
1998 at 21:10:45:
: Alan Splet had about a year to invent sound for them, though, which is
definitely a luxury we don't seem to have any more.This is great!!! I didn't
hear "The Black Stallion" yet, but without a doubt some of these sounds will
work on other movies/scenes as well.What is the best way to prevent that a
studio will steal/recycle your sounds, and use them again for free on a next
movie? That same crash or dream ambience or fly by or beep sequence will work
in another movie/scene!Kevin Powell

Posted by tengy on May 19, 1998 at 22:46:52:
In Reply to: Re: Kevin, how right you are!!!! posted by Randy Thom on May 18,
1998 at 21:10:45:
Hi Randy,I've the same experience with Alan Splet in the recent road
movie,which I was given 6 months to invent sound for the whole 106mins
feature.The director had all of it completely "mute" shots.  And I have to
figureout all the sounds(foley, fx, presence, ambience and etc) needed in the
featurealone without any assistant at all.  The whole feature was ADRed and I
usedSonic Solutions to fit all the sounds.  When Carl Warner said, "he/she can,
a willingness to work long hours ifnecessary and someone that has a natrual
abilityto work well with others. I beleive all of these areabsolutely necessary
to achieve a success in ourprofession."  I'm completely agree with him.By the
way I define presence and ambience differently, any opinion out there...

Posted by Carl Warner on May 20, 1998 at 07:53:00:
In Reply to: Re: Kevin, how right you are!!!! posted by tengy on May 19, 1998
at 22:46:52:
Hi tengy:Your querry about the difference between"presence"and "ambience" is
interesting. I too have noticedthat many Production Sound Mixers appear to use
these terms interchangeably. Your observationthat they ARE NOT the same is of
course quitecorrect.  "Presence" is the sound of the room (room tone) or an
exterior that has no incidentalsounds (dogs barking, traffic noise, factory
noiseor other fx).  "Ambience" is ALL of the soundspresent, including the
aformentioned fx.  Carl Warner

Posted by Bob James on May 15, 1998 at 20:00:57:
In Reply to: mos posted by Rick Horne on May 15, 1998 at 10:37:56:
Hi RickEven Thouugh film schools tell students the old Germancameraman story
(what the heck, it's funny).  My understandingis that "Minus Optical Sound" is
the correct definition.  However,Optical is not used much these days, It is
obsolete too

Posted by Randy Thom on May 17, 1998 at 15:54:44:
In Reply to: Re: mos posted by Bob James on May 15, 1998 at 20:00:57:
: Hi Rick: Even Thouugh film schools tell students the old German: cameraman
story (what the heck, it's funny).  My understanding: is that "Minus Optical
Sound" is the correct definition.  However,: Optical is not used much these
days, It is obsolete tooDear Bob:I'm skeptical about the "Minus Optical
Sound"theory.  In the days when optical sound wasthe prevailing format why
would someone say"minus optical sound" if what they meant was"without sound"?
It would be like someone todaysaying "minus digital sound" when what they
meantwas "without sound."  Know what I mean?Randy

Posted by Mick Davies on May 18, 1998 at 13:28:02:
In Reply to: Re: mos posted by Randy Thom on May 17, 1998 at 15:54:44:
I've heard it was "minus optical stripe", a termused in flatbed editing that
refered to workprints of scenes with no optical sound stripe onthe edge due to
their being shot on locationwithout sound.  I was given to understand thisterm,
abreviated to MOS, filtered into productionfrom post production.Either way, I
have heard many times that MOS isnot a good thing and I've seen the
resultingproblems in post.  It becomes a time consumingtask to recreate an
aural environment when thereis no reference to the reality of a location
thatmay have had acceptable ambience in the firstplace.As a boom operator I
have been lucky to work withmixers who will fight to the end for great soundand
don't go MOS quietly (pun intended).  It keepsme working at all times and on my
toes (no punintended) which is the way I like it.Sincerely,Mick Davies

Posted by bernhard j. schmid on June 20, 1998 at 15:43:57:
In Reply to: Re: mos posted by Mick Davies on May 18, 1998 at 13:28:02:
I heard that MOS comes from the time there a lot of german filmmakers came to
america and they couldīnt spell WITHOUT, so they said MIT OUT SOUND, MIT means
in German languge WITHWith a lot of greetings from Europe,Bernhard J.
Schmidfreelance sound recordist

Posted by Vincent Lutz on July 02, 1998 at 18:07:24:
Many people in the german-speaking film industry don't really know for what
exactly these letters MOS stand. We knowwhen to use it at shooting, but
there're many different expressions fortheses letters. By example:'Mit Out
Sound'   or'Mute Optical Sound'May be you can help us before we develop even
more stranger expressions. :-)Thanks in advance!Vincent  (Munich, Germany)

Posted by luke dunn Gielmuda on July 06, 1998 at 19:46:29:
In Reply to: M O S - For what it stands? posted by Vincent Lutz on July 02,
1998 at 18:07:24:
: Many people in the german-speaking film industry don't really : know for what
exactly these letters MOS stand. We know: when to use it at shooting, but
there're many different expressions for: theses letters. By example:: 'Mit Out
Sound'   or: 'Mute Optical Sound': May be you can help us before we develop
even more stranger expressions. :-): Thanks in advance!: Vincent  (Munich,
Germany) Hi Vincent,Down here in Australia ive always been under the impression
that MOS stands for "Mute On Slate".This means that the clapper board is not
actually clapped for a sync reference, but the sound recordist may still be
rolling for wild sound. This happens alot if the camera is using frame rates
other than 24 or 25. see ya ,luke.

Posted by luke dunn Gielmuda on July 06, 1998 at 19:46:29:
In Reply to: M O S - For what it stands? posted by Vincent Lutz on July 02,
1998 at 18:07:24:
: Many people in the german-speaking film industry don't really : know for what
exactly these letters MOS stand. We know: when to use it at shooting, but
there're many different expressions for: theses letters. By example:: 'Mit Out
Sound'   or: 'Mute Optical Sound': May be you can help us before we develop
even more stranger expressions. :-): Thanks in advance!: Vincent  (Munich,
Germany) Hi Vincent,Down here in Australia ive always been under the impression
that MOS stands for "Mute On Slate".This means that the clapper board is not
actually clapped for a sync reference, but the sound recordist may still be
rolling for wild sound. This happens alot if the camera is using frame rates
other than 24 or 25. see ya ,luke.

Posted by Randy Thom on July 02, 1998 at 19:52:50:
In Reply to: M O S - For what it stands? posted by Vincent Lutz on July 02,
1998 at 18:07:24:
: Many people in the german-speaking film industry don't really : know for what
exactly these letters MOS stand. We know: when to use it at shooting, but
there're many different expressions for: theses letters. By example:: 'Mit Out
Sound'   or: 'Mute Optical Sound': May be you can help us before we develop
even more stranger expressions. :-): Thanks in advance!: Vincent  (Munich,
Germany) Dear Vincent:I don't know how the term began, and I doubt ifanybody
else does either, but I do know how itis used today:It means to shoot visual
images withoutsimultaneously recording sound to go with thoseimages.Randy

Posted by Kevin Powell on July 02, 1998 at 19:21:08:
In Reply to: M O S - For what it stands? posted by Vincent Lutz on July 02,
1998 at 18:07:24:
: May be you can help us before we develop even more stranger expressions. :-
)Help yourself

Posted by Eric Toline on July 11, 1998 at 20:51:53:
Two schools of thought. One logical, one romantic.Romantic: Mit Ous Sound,
except in German the word for "Out" is "Aus", so that dosn't work unless you
believe that some soundman along time ago didn't know how it was to
spelled,etc,etc.LOGICAL: M.O.S.= Minus Optical Sound.  You can explain it
anyway you want since almost everyone knows what it means, except the new video
brats who think it means "Man On Street" Or my favorite in todays world of
really bad music videos "Music Outta Sync"

Posted by Phil Benson on August 16, 1998 at 01:57:39:
In Reply to: M.O.S. What does it mean?? posted by Eric Toline on July 11, 1998
at 20:51:53:
Someone once said it was "Mute On Sound".: Two schools of thought. One logical,
one romantic.: Romantic: Mit Ous Sound, except in German the word for "Out" is
"Aus", so that dosn't work unless you believe that some soundman along time ago
didn't know how it was to spelled,etc,etc.: LOGICAL: M.O.S.= Minus Optical
Sound.  You can explain it anyway you want since almost everyone knows what it
means, except the new video brats who think it means "Man On Street" Or my
favorite in todays world of really bad music videos "Music Outta Sync"

Posted by Randy Thom on July 12, 1998 at 20:42:40:
In Reply to: M.O.S. What does it mean?? posted by Eric Toline on July 11, 1998
at 20:51:53:
Dear Eric:I'll say it once again............I don't buy the "minus optical
sound" theory.  Sorry, but I don't find it logical at all.When the term "MOS"
was first being used, virtually all movie sound was recorded optically.Nobody
would have said "minus optical sound."  They would have just said "minus
sound."  The "optical" part would have been understood and completely
unnecessary to say.Randy

Posted by Linda Murdoch on July 17, 1998 at 02:24:29:
In Reply to: Re: M.O.S. What does it mean?? posted by Randy Thom on July 12,
1998 at 20:42:40:
: Dear Eric:: I'll say it once again............I don't buy the "minus optical
sound" theory.  Sorry, but I don't find it logical at all.: When the term "MOS"
was first being used, virtually all movie sound was recorded optically.: Nobody
would have said "minus optical sound."  They would have just said "minus
sound."  The "optical" part would have been understood and completely
unnecessary to say.: RandyI remember hearing that Billy Wilder coined the term
- it means "MittOut Sound" (i.e. 'without sound'if you speak English with a
heavy German accent, which Billy most certainly did when he first arrived in
America. If a find a written source I'll post it.:Linda Murdoch