Ray, I agree with Charlie, go out early or late and do your shooting–if the light is the way you want it. Or go with Dick’s idea: shoot the same scenes twice, once for the picture and once for the sound, then mix them in post production (editing). BTW, I think editing is a given if you want a nice looking video (right, Kevin?) and there are dozens of cheap and easy, digital programs available.
Dave, not to be a smart-ass (again) but movies are not “shot silent and then have the sound added.” Picture and sound are recorded simultaneously, although not necessarily on the same device (there can be a camera and a sound recorder that are linked and synced together), and if there are no problems, the shot is “in the can.” If there are difficulties, the actors can go back to a studio and dub in the correct/suitable dialogue or whatever. But I doubt if a cast of thousands working on a major film, troops back to the studio to re-do all their scenes. BTW, recording picture and sound independently is called “double system,” as opposed to “single system,” which is where both video and audio are recorded in the camera. Most videos, home and TV news, are shot this way, because it’s simple and compact. But a major drawback is continuity. For example, if you’re shooting, say, a singer and you stop photographing to change camera position or make some other adjustment, with single system you have also stopped recording the sound (the melody) leaving with a huge vocal gap. With double system, you still have the sound, although you will have to put everything together in the editing bay. And ya can’t leave out a chunk of picture, so there’s gotta be something else (a cutaway of another image, perhaps) to fill in the visual gap that occured while you were futzing around.
So how’d I do, Professor Strong?