• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About alenK

  • Rank
    Hero Member

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interested in Sound for Picture
  • About
    Sound Mixer
  1. Thank you for the replies. The jam on return to 24fps is what we are doing now. Thank you.
  2. When we are shooting multi cam docu-package b-roll of live action our producers have started interrupting the flow by asking one or more of the cam ops to quickly switch to a higher frame rate for slow motion highlights. We usually just jam sync the cameras at the start but lately have been considering using some of the new mini lock boxes. How can we integrate these boxes into our workflow and accommodate a mid stream change of frame rate on a portion of the cameras in play? My concern is that we may be attempting to evolve with use of technology just as our production practices are devolving. I was thinking perhaps we could have an extra box preset to the other rate. e.g. have a set of boxes at 24fps and an extra at 60 or 120 and quickly swap it in. The key is that we are covering action that happens without our control. We can not call cut, and any time we waste making changes, is a lost opportunity for making pictures. Post never complains about time code issues but I'd like to do the best we can with the circumstance we find ourselves in. Do you have any suggestions? Thank you.
  3. Thank you for the information.
  4. Well, I have seen a few claims that users have had their SRc swamped with RF despite clear scans and normal precautions. These observations have caused me to go back and forth on choosing 411s or SRc on an impending purchase. Why does it matter to me where the issue is? It seems as if the front end is using state of the art tech, so I am wondering if there is potential for improvement that has been identified elsewhere or if Lectrosonics feels that the SRc is on par with 411 with regards to the circuit layout, shielding etc. I suppose some people upgraded from SR(a) to SRb simply because the performance was better but other people probably appreciated knowing why the performance was better. I think Lectrosonics did a great job of providing explanations. Thank you.
  5. I agree. I meant to express the idea that it is probably better to just set my gear up so it works ok and stop trying to over think it.
  6. I agree that the question is best answered by Lectrosonics. I suppose they must have some way of making distinctions and employed some method when developing the improvements in the earlier SR products. Thank you.
  7. Yes I did read this thread, and then I asked my question. Perhaps I should have worded the question more specifically. Reading here and elsewhere I have learned that: UCR411a have a tracking filter 11MHz wide while the SRc have a tracking filter 15Mhz wide. I have also considered that UCR411a have a IP3 of +8dBm, SRc have a IP3 of +0dBm, and UCR210d have a IP3 of +12dBm. I have read quite a bit about how the original SR(a) evolved into the SRb and appreciate how developments in the pcb layout and construction resulted in remarkable improvements. I am fascinated with the new broad band SRc but also scared off by a few reports that some users have had them swamped by interference. I am wondering if the SRc may be such a new design that it will evolve in a manner and timeline similar to the SR(a) to SRb transition. I am grateful that Lectrosonics is clear about the comparisons between the 411a and the SR series. My specific question is asking if there are any issues with RF interference that may occur after the tracking filter. I am asking if any interference picked on the internal circuit but not necessarily via the antennas can be compared between two appliance designs. I am asking how the SRc compares to the 411a (with its enormous metal case/shield) and if there is any way to quantify the difference. I realize that tacking this question on the end of a thread about the "front end" may have been a poor decision. I have been avidly reading everything I can find about the SRc. Thank you.
  8. Thank you for the comments and posting the link. It is obvious to me that I don't think about the actual frequency value enough because Larry's comment about the first harmonic being beyond the entire UHF range we work in was a revelation.. For example;. 2 x (the lowest frequency available to us) > (the highest frequency available to us). I have never considered this specifically but now it seems obvious. The information about inter modulation between two blocks was informative but I reminded myself that as you add frequencies the interaction gets more complex and this is a reason for considering pre coordinated frequencies as suggested by the Lectrosonics page: The more I thought about that I realized that Larry's advice "set up a test situation with transmitters at real world distances, both near and far, and make sure everything operates the way you think it should" is the best way to address my concerns. Thank you.
  9. I guess I was reading too much in to it and thinking that there was perhaps a technically inspired strategy to prioritize the talent signal reliability over the camera hop. I was imagining that harmonics, reflections, and possible intermod problems attributed to the lower frequencies may step on the camera hop with less repercussion than having the camera hop cause mishaps with the the talent signals.
  10. Hello, Are there any official specifications on how the SRc and 411s reject stray RFI? Anecdotes describing how the early SR series was more susceptible than a 411 to RFI have me wondering if the SRc is as good as the 411 in this regard. Thank you.
  11. Hi Martin. That does seems like a good work habit. Thank you.
  12. Hello, Thanks for the replies. The idea that a close proximity of a transmitter to a receiver may be problematic seems easy to agree with. It's hard for me to remember which posts suggest using a higher frequency range for camera hops. I did not pay much attention or realize that I was seeing the idea suggested repeatedly until after I became impressed with the idea that I was seeing it repeatedly. It is possible that I have read a particular thread multiple times and now mistakenly think I have seen the idea repeated more often than it has been. I guess if there was a technical reason then people might recognize my question, and if there is not a technical reason than the whole idea may be a figment of my imagination. Thank you.
  13. Hello, I have seen several mentions that talent mic to mixer frequency ranges should be below a hop from mixer to camera frequency ranges. Is there a technical reason or is it just a habit? Thank you.
  14. update 03/06/2017 I tried using several older versions of JAVA in my Windows 7 x64 OS in Chrome, Firefox, and Internet Explorer browsers and had zero luck until I found and used an archived copy of the Windows x86 jdk-6u45-windows-i586.exe installer. I had to manually enable the "Add-Ons" in Internet Explorer 11. Note that the Windows x64 jdk-6u45-windows-x64.exe did not seem to work in my x64 OS and I imagine this is because Internet Explorer is still a x86 application. Once I had this version of Java running the FCC application opened quickly and ran smoothly. I had none of the troubles that I had anticipated. I followed the instructions at the Local 695 website and was able to complete the application in one session. I got the 6u45 JAVA install by registering an account with Oracle and downloading the installer here:: I am adding this note because I wasted a lot of time trying different JAVA versions and hope that the info helps others. Good luck.
  15. Hello, Is there a paper form version for this application? I tried 3 browsers and finally got Internet Explorer with security set wide open to begin to load the applet but then the process stalls with a grey page and a few tab buttons. I am ready to give up and will prefer to use real life paper at this point if it is possible. Thank you.