pkautzsch

Although there is a slight difference in quality needs between a "real" mix track and a "comtek/dailies" mix track. There was a thread by Henchman not long ago about the use of isos in fast-paced post workflows. The Gist: not all fast-turnaround post uses the location mix, but at least some prefer to use the boom iso until they find a problem, and then use lav isos.

We have similar trouble, but most times it's just that when REC is pushed on one of our Alexas, the Teradek drops out completely. No cause to be found out, each component was exchanged. Video op is convinced it's Voodoo.

What stereo techniques did best in your tests? Did you do surround setups too?

Nice! Hopefully they will do a dual channel RX and a plug-on TX in the 1010 range too.

INV-7 for indoor use. Windshield kit (with or without pistol grip) for outdoor use - I don't know the size fitting the NTG-3 best. The INV-7 will not hold a mic with a Softie properly.

That wooden "bullet" is a great idea. I'm quite sure it won't give you much TSA trouble either. I usually pre-warm them in my trousers' pockets. Thank you for the heat pack idea. I'll try if it works if I just put one (reuseable) pack in my TX case. Would also warm the belts and rubber mounts.

The upper one looks like just another housing for this rather strange dual cardioid "fig-8" array. I wonder how well this thing works, especially for shorter wavelengths.

I rather think of these pics as food for thought - Oktava has a few interesting concepts that can be refined to work properly... In those pics, there are two main points to be improved: You'd use a better suspension that takes up less space, and I think the distance between both mic bodies is too large. With Rycote stuff, I'm thinking lyres and a "backpack clamp" to mount the second mic onto the first one. There is no "articulated preamp", but a swivel connector just like the Schoeps GVC. It's passive and, like all Oktava, quite cheap. There is also a remote capsule version (MK-012 mini) with which you'd mount the bodies outside the blimp.

+1 to the "live Foley" approach. If you can do the footsteps in sync with the actors, do so. A wild track won't be of much use since post will have to align each footstep anyway, and then it's easier to Foley it. As long as it's not lipsync dialog, don't worry about getting the real sound.

Use a larger diameter zep (like the MS one) and mount them like this: http://www.oktava-shop.com/Microphone-accessories/SM-MSR-shock-mount-for-two-mics.html

+1

Two years later, and a few things have been modified. First of all, I changed the small "loading" wheels on the top part. It can now roll into my car's trunk more easily. That way the base unit fits in upright on its wheels. No need to remove anything. Then, I modified the boom holders. It's now a Toolflex system like in this thread - for longer/bumpy moves I'll secure the booms with bungees. Also it turned out that I need most capabilities to be mobile enough for quick bag work. So it's basically a big and heavy bag cart. I don't lose much functionality when I take the bag, the fins, and a stand out to a mountaintop. The cart gives me more comfortable access to all the bits and pieces, and it seems to make me more credible with some clients than just a bag would, but the actual mixing happens inside the bag. The most significant change has been a Blackmagic Smartview Duo. This dual monitor unit has a sensor which way it is mounted, and will display the image correctly when mounted upside down. Visibility when sitting increases strongly, while decreasing and changing colors for all the "visitors" that always seem to come wherever they see a screen. It is powered from the central lead battery and works fine even below 12 volts. This is what the cart looks like today:

A friend has a 6-section telescoping "mast" in his bag. I think it is mounted with a few cable ties, and collapses to about 35 cm. With less than 2 meters of cable, cable loss is not a big issue, especially when you use sharkfins that have a lot of "free" gain. Oh, and maybe look at some of the "bag cart" threads, there are some very compact and cheap solutions.

To make a green screen work in post, post must just be done by someone who knows their job (as long as that green screen is lighted decently). To allow a boom in shot in front of a green screen, a few non-post people need to know about the post workflow too. In your experience, do they rather listen to cost arguments or to workflow arguments? Especially in a situation where cost of removing a boom is significantly lower than ADR, but needs the whole post workflow to accomodate? Does it differ with younger teams that have known digital workflows from the beginnings of their careers vs old school teams used to shoot on film?

Seems like you're over-complicating things. You don't need a long antenna, but a stand or boom to mount your existing antenna on. I use a rip-off of the classic Manfrotto. Goes to about 6 ft. Sharkfins on top, but dipoles work too. Then, coax cable to an antenna split like "PSC RF Multi SMA" or similar feeding your RX.

The scene looks a bit like a camera department that wanted to show off. It sounds great.

When I record stereo backgrounds with a MS setup, I will only send post raw tracks after confirming they know what to do with it. Else I'll decode it and send them XY. If they want to monoize it then, they can simply pan both to center. That way the S part vanishes automatically and they get precisely the M signal I was getting from the M mic. Of course, when it's mostly about mono dialog and I have to boom it with an MS mic, I'll turn down the S channel completely. If I want to give them clean mono dialog (boom) and stereo background, I'd rather have a fixed stereo mic somewhere else. It is very distracting to have a stereo image move around all the time, even if it would match picture.

Fantastic thread. Might be nothing less than a paradigm change in movie production. The key now is making this workflow known to as many "image" people, from camera to color, as possible. Usually happens when the picture folks don't know about post capabilities. Often these same folks ask, "don't you have a plugin to make the boom sound closer?"

Ab-so-lute-ly. Noise is a bit higher than in a MKH 30 or KM 120. But in normal conditions this is not a problem. I would not use it for very soft sounds or whispered dialog. I have used the CK 94 as orchestral spots, choir spots, Side in an MS setup, and even for dialog in certain circumstances where a fig-8 pattern was best in reducing ambient noise. In a non-scientific test, the pattern was more even than MKH 30, KM 120, and MK8. It does not add any color to sound from 45° or even 60°.

Have the RX a bit deeper in the bag so the joints don't stick out? Half a centimeter should be enough, right?

I do get the sense behind TA3. Actually I think they are easier to solder than XLRs. Locking might be improved. Every brand of wireless has another kind of connector. Heck, the EN2 series has different connectors on the standard TX, TX Pro, and Mini TX. I don't understand this. All brands of mixers, recorders, or rack gear have XLR. So why not use one type of connector on all wireless. TA-5 would give a lot of wiring options and is cheap and rugged. I also get the sense behind the locking principle in power connections. That's the one disadvantage of the D-tap. But why the heck do we need so many. It gets even worse with all that coax power stuff. With XLR it's 4 pin, so why not agree on TA-4 as the small size standard. Even with mobile phones manufacturers seem to have agreed to a standard connector (a USB variety).

So far we've always boomed with standard fur and often used the wind sock beneath the fur for additional protection. Keeping the zeppelin pointing down keeps the water from dripping inside. In normal Euro rain this has worked well enough, and when it rained harder usually it was camera that at some point cut off. Needs thorough drying. Same goes for the boom: dismantle completely. Best have one (old) "rain kit". Most rain covers seem to only cover the zep as long as it's horizontal. Not the typical booming position.

Works again. Thanks Jeff!!!

They copy the cards from both cams, labeled A and B, data from each card going into a separate folder. Usually camera file naming will be something like A003C012 for the 12th clip on the 3rd card of the A camera. I think an editor who understands this camera file naming pattern will also understand a similar sound file naming pattern if two machines are used. Just make sure they know that an "A" or "B" sound folder has nothing to do with an "A" or "B" camera. With a scene/take file naming pattern this is a non-issue.

Hi Jeff, for the last few days I've encountered a 404 message when clicking on the Gallery of Carts link on the main forum page. Using a normal computer running Firefox. What's up there? Is it me? Thanks!