John Blankenship

Based on the initial description, I'm not sure of the setup, but if he's talking about the following scenario, it's not uncommon: The camera operator and the sound mixer both have headphones monitoring from the same camera output (with a Y cable). When the camera operator takes his cans off or puts them on, the sound mixer hears sound generated from this action. (It works in the other direction, too, of course.) This occurs because (most) headphones are dynamic transducers which use a moving coil operating in a magnetic field. The headphone elements are essentially a microphone or a speaker -- depending upon whether they're generating a voltage or translating a voltage -- and they're hooked up in parallel with each other (yes, just like tin cans with a tight piece of string between them). The pressure change from the headphones being removed from (or put on) the camera operator's head, generates a voltage (via a moving coil in a magnetic field) and the sound mixer's headphones turns this voltage back into sound waves (via a driven coil, operating in a magnetic field). This is normal. One way to avoid the effect occurring is for the sound mixer to monitor from the camera's line outputs while the camera operator is monitoring from the camera's headphone output. Therefore each pair of headphones is being driven via separate amplifiers which isolate the headphones from each other (you've cut the string between the tin cans). John B.

Ah, the quip of the day. Excellent John B

I stand corrected, +4dBu it is. For some reason I was thinking that the 442 had the same nominal output as the 302 and MixPre which are both 0dBu. John B.

I thought all three of the SD mixers were 0dB nominal level on the main outputs at 0vu (as opposed to the +4 of most other professional mixers). That, coupled with the max output of +20dB gives 20dB headroom, whereas, with +4 out they would only have 16dB headroom. John B.

I worked with the system a while back and they used a fiber optic link between the camera and deck. The total delay was something like seven frames with the addition of the fiber optic connection in the chain. IIRC, the deck could only compensate for up to five frames. Fortunately, none of that was due to my department. The shoot still went okay and there was little screaming. John B.

Perhaps it's one of those obsessive compulsive things. John B.

I'm in favor of the awards... I like getting a nice pile of screeners toward the end of the year. John B.

Run through several scenarios and the problem becomes more obvious. An example: Let's say you use a scale of 1 to 10 points and have a panel of 10 people and let's say seven of those people vote for FILM-A to be number one. Logic would tell you that this film is probably the best of the year. But, if three people with an agenda decide to push a less worthy film (FILM-, then they simply give FILM-A only a 1. Let's say that FILM-B is a modestly decent film and garners a seven from two people, and only a six from five people. In this scenario, FILM-B would be the winner over the obviously superior FILM-A. FILM-A: 7x10 + 3x1 = 73 points FILM-B: 3x10 + 2x7 + 5x6 = 74 points So seven people think FILM-A is the best and the same seven people think FILM-B is notably less worthy, but FILM-B takes first place. That's what's wrong with it. This method gives even small voting blocks much more power. Therefore, voters who are conscientious have less affect on the outcome than those with an agenda. The olympic model would work better. Looking at it another way, a film could be voted number one without garnering even a single first place vote. John B.

Looking through replays of some of the archived performances, they're using a variety of mics. While one guy was hand-holding a mic, usually, it's a lav -- often in plain view. As far as the nude performances... the imagination staggers. John B.

Oh, I neglected to mention... I do these in my office cabana located by the swimming pool on MY yacht while sipping wine from your vineyard. John B.

I print mine on my laser printer and therefore it's a lot less expensive than Kinkos. After printing, I cut the yellow pages to the size I need for the DVD sleeve (which is just a bit off the right and a bit off the bottom). The white and pink sheets are still standard page sizes. It's really slick. When I first started using NCR I had Kinkos do them, but now I can make them exactly how I want, change them at any time I wish, and I can include the custom sized yellow sheet without worries that they'll be misaligned. I hang onto the white sheet, yellow goes with the DVD-RAM, and pink goes to production -- or wherever they want it routed. That way, should I ever get a call later that all the materials have been lost, I can make a photocopy from the white (the yellow and pink don't copy well) and I can duplicate the DVD-RAM from the hard drive. It might be silly, but that's my thinking. John B.

I print my own 3-part NCR forms. That way they're customized, personalized, and formatted for my specific use. Copy two (yellow) is precut to fit the clear outside wrap of a standard DVD case so the sound reports stay with the DVD-RAM. They also cost me substantially less than any of the preprinted ones. However, the preprinted ones could be considered more cost effective if: A) they're already formatted to your needs, and you don't have time, ability, or the desire to do your own. John B.

Try the 7506s with the DT250 Beyer pads (about $20). I think you'll be pleased. John B.

How flat it lies depends upon how well it's been "trained" and how it is laid out. I haven't compared it to other CAT5E except that it lies much better than runs with solid conductors. This cable has 24AWG 4pair Stranded conductors. For less than $12 including S&H you could get a 50' one and try it out: http://tinyurl.com/km4nkz If you do, please let us know how it compares. John B.

I've been using these CAT5E cables (in both 50' and 100' lengths) and have been pleased with the results and even more pleased with the cost/performance ratio. http://tinyurl.com/m6c2t4 John B.

Also, Trew Audio and Comtek are sources. John B.

And in my experience, when it comes to the PD170 audio-wise, using it as either a moving OR stationary target would be the best approach -- preferably with a large caliber projectile. A few years back, I worked on a show during which we used four different PD170s. Each one sounded different -- two of them with severe low freq. roll-off. John B.

Laurence, From where I sit, most of the issues I've seen presented during this contentious process are valid. But, that validity is obscured by posturing and massive smoke screens from ALL sides. May I respectfully suggest that your response to Richard's concerns serves to illustrate the problem rather than to inform a solution. If you actually wish to "bridge the gap, a response to reasoned arguments such as many of those Richard presents would do well to contain something other than a dismissive tone. Your response read as, "Thank you for your opinion. Now those of us who know what we are doing will continue to implement what is right and show you and all the other misguided souls the way." If we truly want to "bridge the gap" we need discourse that begins with actually listening and then addressing the concerns of the other parties without all the posturing. Yes, our health care system desperately needs reform. But, if that reform is shaped from one particular political viewpoint it will be an expensive exercise in power mongering. Politics is our worst enemy in this, yet that is the position from which ALL sides are approaching it. Let's be done with the posturing, political infighting, and righteous indignation and address the necessary issues. Those issues are valid and must be dealt with using reasoned discourse. All the posturing and political steam-roller-ing prevents that. This should no longer be about political power but about what best serves all of our nation. John B.

I worked on some regional commercials shot on this camera. The producers wanted to use only camera audio. I rolled a Deva but they still used only the camera audio. Overall, it sounded okay. We were shooting on a warm stage. They tried recording with the deck docked on the camera and it kept shutting down from the heat. They then tried it mounted remotely but had some issues there and went back to the docked setup. To keep it from shutting down constantly, they then ran the camera fan on low while we were shooting and every so often we'd stop shooting and cool the stage down. Yes, the camera fan noise was definitely noticeable. The menu takes a bit of getting used to but once set up, it works fine. Give yourself plenty of time to get your settings dialed in. A good DIT helps there. John B.

For some time now, I've maintained the firm belief that the only hope for the future of our country (USA) is term limits. One term and that's it. It's high time for us to do away with fat cats who go through the motions of pretending to serve the public interest while working to derive maximum personal wealth and power from their position. Career politicians are our downfall as special interests with deep pockets fund these puppets. Currently, politicians live within a culture that supports their belief that allowing leaders to live as a privileged class is good for the country. It's a self-serving culture that is way out of touch. A strong side benefit is that with a one term limit they are never running for office while they are supposed to be serving in office. Let's get back to what the founding fathers intended in all their collective wisdom -- A citizen leaves the farm and serves his country in congress, then goes back to the farm -- once again, a common citizen. John B.

Apparently our government has no shortage of cash. Out "leaders" are dolling it out hand over fist as fast as they can to everyone but the hard working middle class who did the most to make this country successful. John B.

There is just one other little bitty problem with socialism. The people in power must be dedicated to the public interest and remain honest and uncorrupted -- administration after administration. Does anyone want to make a small side bet on the chances of that happening consistently over any number of years? Barring that and the stifling of individual incentive, socialism sounds like a real good idea. JB

No, you're only beginning. It's a battle we all fight. The key is to NOT give up, but to realize the elements you're dealing with. Number one on the top ten list is the inverse square law: Sound increases or diminishes by the square of the distance, therefore, if the mic is 1/2" from the noise maker (shirt) and 8" from the needed sound (mouth) you're fighting a difficult battle. It's like playing cards and the house is dealing from a stacked deck. You're using a lot of the right tools, but before you employ them, take a listen to the real problem, the noise maker that is 1/2" from your mic. #1) How noisy is the shirt? What fabric is it? Has it been starched? Then look at: #2) Where is the mic positioned? Try to find a mounting point where the shirt moves the least as the actor moves. Often this is in the middle, just under the edge of the shirt above the sternum. I frequently use the Overcovers under the shirt edge in the middle next to a button (the button can make the shirt a little more stable at that point. Yes, I prefer using the Overcovers over using the Undercovers, under a shirt (try saying that real fast a few times). I find the soft fur of the Overcovers works better for me against rubbing noises than the Undercovers. In your situation, the Overcovers will also help where wind noise is involved. If it's particularly windy, have a grip stand holding a 4x4 to help block the wind, just off camera. Everyone was amazed (including me) when I got clean tracks one day in gale force winds using the above methods. Work with wardrobe on this. If the shirt is noisy enough, there's sometimes nothing you can do short of going to a hair rig. I imagine others will have hints, too, so take heart, you're fighting the same battles we all fight. John B.

(This was written just before the preceding two comments, but I'll go ahead and post it.) I'm new to Mac, but here's a comment, some things to do and know, and one thing to try: An important aspect to be aware of is, that even though it's in QuickTime format, the codec used to create the movie makes a big difference as there are many variations of codecs that can be used within QuickTime. As I understand it, QuickTime is not a specific codec of video, it is a wrapper within which the codec resides. 1) On each of the machines, in QuickTime Player, click on "QuickTime Player" and then click on "About QuickTime Player" then note which version of QTP each machine is using. 2) In QTP, with the video loaded, click on "Window" then click on "Show Movie Inspector" and note all the information there. 3) In QTP, with the video loaded, click on "View" then click on "Actual Size" then click on "File" then click on "Save As..." click on the button, "Save as a self-contained movie" give it a new file name, then save it. See if this version makes any difference. I sure won't promise anything but it's something to try. Good luck. John B.

Time code and film/video speed are two entirely different things but people are constantly confusing them and confused about the difference. Pull up and pull down are used to change the actual playing speed -- and therefore to change the actual duration -- of a recording or video. The main reason this is done is because film (in the U.S.) is shot at 24 frames per second and since television (in the U.S.) -- and therefore most video (in the U.S.) -- is actually 29.97 frames per second, the two aren't compatible. However if you slow down the film by one tenth of one percent (to 23.976 frames per second), you can create six composited new frames (combinations of frames already existing, distributed among the other frames) and record that to 29.97 frames per second video. It's basic math: 24 frames per second slowed down by one tenth of one percent is now running at 23.976 frames per second and 1.25 x 23.976 = 29.97. 1.25 times the 24 frames = 30 frames, therefore, adding the six new frames makes this all work out. Confused yet? The main thing to remember is that THIS process is what requires a speed change and therefore calls for a work flow that accommodates the speed change. Now, back to video. Video is very seldom changed in speed from shooting to editing to outputting back to video. Think of the two different processes -- and work flows -- as film speed vs video speed. Video is normally shot at video speed and STAYS at video speed. There are, however, a few cameras that will actually shoot a true 24 frames per second. The primary purpose of these cameras is to shoot footage that is destined to be scanned to film (at a sizable cost) for projection in a movie theater -- therefore 24 frames per second. Any project that is realistically going to do a "film-out" (scanning the video to actual film) probably has a decent budget and can afford for you to test out the work flow beforehand to make sure everything will stay in sync. Nothing I've said so far is about time code. Time code does not determine video speed, it is simply a way of counting the frames that are there. Again: Time code does not determine video speed. Normally, you want to use a time code rate that corresponds to the video rate. But again, that has NOTHING to do with video SPEED, only how the frames are counted -- just as drop-frame time code DOES NOT drop any frames, it only counts them differently. To answer your specific question, when a video camera says that it shoots at 30 frames per second it almost always means 29.97 frames per second. The camera manufacturers think that if they publish a fraction like 29.97 it will only confuse users, so they simplify it to 30. The reason you would use a 48,048kHz sampling rate is so that when the sound file is played back it will play back at one tenth of one percent slow. When do we need that? When we're matching the audio with something that was shot on film that is being transferred to video. And, we don't always use it then. It depends upon the post production work flow decided upon. I'll admit, I don't know specifically how the new still cameras that shoot video are configured, but a rule of thumb is that if something is shot on video, the safest assumption -- by far -- is to assume that there will not be a speed change. If it IS required, that can still be accomplished later. So, to extend the rule of thumb: When recording audio for video, unless you know FOR SURE a reason to do otherwise, use 29.97 non-drop time code and NO speed change. I hope this write-up clarifies at least a bit more than it confuses. John B.