• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About chrismedr

  • Rank
    Hero Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interested in Sound for Picture
    Not Applicable
  • About

Recent Profile Visitors

2,018 profile views
  1. well, buy an old T-powered mic then? won't cost you much more then a converter.
  2. do a google search, it will have something
  3. I don't really understand the question here... you obviously decided to approach this as a (dedicated) hobby project. nothing wrong with that, it allows you to go ahead without waiting endlessly for funding, you don't have to justify anything to producers, and you'll have a great time with friends and family. If all goes well, the result will be better then an average commercial film because the spirit will transfer into the final film and it will fun to watch. sometimes it will fail completely. Now you're asking a bunch of professional sound mixers who take pride in their jobs and need to account for professional audio every day if this is a good way to record audio. Obviously to them it's not, because they can't just say "sorry, yesterdays audio is not good enough, we will have to reshoot that". you on the other hand can take that risk. Simply said, you'll have to option to keep financial commitment at a bare minimum, which has it's limitations and also it's benefits. Or you can get some more funds and approach it differently, which also has some benefits and some limitations. you'll never get to a situation where you get neither of the limitations and both of the benefits. All that said, if it were me and I would that much time and energy into something, I would invest in slightly better gear (say a Zoom F4 or a used 744T which you can sell again). I would also spend some days on technical training on everybody involved until everybody is feeling comfortable and I'm happy with the technical quality. And then the things who are much harder to control then sound quality start.. good luck, and remember that filmmaking if done as a hobby should be fun : ) chris
  4. one vote from me. would be very handy
  5. sounds to me that you did all your homework and from the technical side there's nothing in the way that would prevent you from recording decent audio. so now focus on the room acoustics, and even more so on the task of directing/producing/camera operating at the same time as inspiring the actors for a great performance ; ) chris
  6. That would be great - would make it possible to use a G3. I understand that would probably be a hardware upgrade though
  7. at me, or at plural eyes? : ) 100 clips of 2 minutes length? (i.e. over 3 hours of footage) depends on the codec used, the speed of your hard disk and machine, but I'd say something like half an hour max with decent hardware. but for ENG, why not just send over a good clean wireless hop and use that as production audio? if you do a scratch track from the same audio as the recorder I'd say 95-100% success rate. If you use an on camera mic, like 10-80% well, when did you try last? and how did you record the camera audio? you want identical mix on both the camera and recorder for best results. yes and we all know that every camera does reliable time code and there is never any operator error... and if TC goes wrong and there is no scratch audio on an ENG shoot, then better run and hide. I do a fair bit of post and I use plural eyes frequently, thanks for asking. all that said, personally I prefer TC (even audio TC) to plural eyes, but there are many small productions where plural eyes does just fine (which, I think was the original question) chris
  8. agreed, a G3 on the scratch track and plural eyes works nearly as well as timecode. if I'm feeling really paranoid, I send a scratch on one channel and hook up a Tentacle on the other, so if one gets messed up for some reason there's a second sync option.
  9. well, you could probably use the key code of the film to help, but you still need a way to expose a TC stamp in camera, and a system in telecine to read and translate that stamp back to numbers. well, TC on audio is no problem. I experimented with synch audio on 16mm cameras a while back. the best way I could find without TC reader on telecine or clapperbord was: - attach a light portable decoder to the 16mm camera, on one track record scratch audio (either on camera mic or wireless hop from mixer), on the other I attached a contact mic to the camera motor, so that i got a nice loud rattle with minimal ambient sound. - then sync the on-camera-recorder audio with production audio using plural eyes. - the put it into a timeline and examine the contact mic track for waveform, and align the flash frame from the telecine footage with the rattle waveform parts. I've found that i get about 3-4 frames offset because it needs a fraction of a second for the camera to get to sync speed, but the offset was fairly consistent. you could so a similar workflow and record AUDIO-TC from a Tentacle or other box to one of the on-camera-recorder tracks, sync that with the production audio (on davinci or Avid etc), and use the rattle waveform for visual sync again. or you could even send the contact mic wireless to the mixer and record the motor rattle directly on a track there, this way you could skip the step of aligning the two audio files. hope that gives some ideas chris
  10. the problem is that what you see here is the manufacturer key code, it has no reference to what time the footage has been exposed, so you can't use it for time code. with film, what you would need is a machine that exposes the timecode on the film while shooting (usually the camera), then another machine which uses this optical information back into computer readable numbers (the key code system on the telecine). if you're missing either of those components then there's no way to have things synched automatically. so try to find a lab that still has a machine that can read your systems timecode (aaton or arri). and shoot a test, since these things often don't work (or are handled improperly) chris
  11. Kortwich has several 5V USB adapters (and I'm sure they make many more if you ask them) but if you're aiming for under 30bucks, then DIY with some chinese ebay components is probably the way to go. random links:
  12. Doh, I'm getting blind (or seriously distracted)... Interesting that the say "It may have a negative phase output signal when it has a positive sound wave." - as if they weren't sure. Could that be because it depends on the transmitter? No mention under the transmitter specific wiring though (unless I missed something again). chris PS: they also mention gain differences, which could explain the difference in the "normal gain on COS-11" thread
  13. Eric, I've heard that the COS-11 cable is really difficult to solder, does this match your experience? I'm asking because I could get the PT version quite a bit cheaper then with a connector, but my solder skills are just about average. btw, for those who have a better understanding in electronics then me, Sanken has a nice page page with all the wire diagrams: basics about 3 wire vs 2 wire: and all the transmitters: for example lector: no mention of phase there though. chris
  14. sounds strange. did you try a factory reset? next thing I would do is call SD headquarters and ask them what they think.
  15. cool snow setup - I still hope SD will release a tactile wireless control interface that works like the wingman app, but with physical controls. I have a very similar (same?) backpack, a Case Logic SLRC-206. it's affordable, nice and compact and as you say the solid waterproof bottom is very useful.