Jump to content
gabi

788T/Fusion comparison and advice

Recommended Posts

the 788 has a build-in Ambient Lockit, the Fusion does not. To be safe one needs an external Lockit when TC jamming is required.

Might the Fusion have an equally accurate or better timecode chip/crystal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not had any TC drift issues with my Fusion and TS-C, so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the reliability of the internal clock.  The Error message issue with the Fusion and Denecke slates has been brought up in other threads here, and it should more or less be ignored; I believe it is just that the impedance (?) doesn't play nicely between the two devices, but the slate takes the jam just fine (and vice versa).  However, I'm pretty sure that the error message I get in this scenario is "snc er 29".  Are you definitely sure that the slate is in 29 mode (should be position "1" on the rotary dial)?  You should be pretty clear of the TC you're running on the Fusion, as its explicitly written on the screen of the Fusion.

2-3 "frames" for 3 hours seems wierd.  Are you taking the files after 3 hours and synching?  I'm not doubting you're having the problem, but unless you've had sync problems in post, I don't know how you'd know you were off by 2-3 frames.  If you're taking a photo of the two screens next to each other, I don't know that I would trust that the screen on the Fusion necessarily displays the exact time the internal clock is stamping to the files, so I would not assume you have a problem unless you can confirm it in a post setup.

As to your first question regarding the two mixes each going to their own mix track and output, this is exactly the situation I was were discussing earlier in the thread with Valentino.  Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, you have to route twice, once in the "Input" menu, and once in the "Output" menu.  Thus far, there is no "Tracks to Outputs" option in the Fusion/Deva software.  Again, I'd appeal to Glenn to add this to the firmware, because this potentially limits the Fusion/Deva's usefulness in a "Reality" situation, because in order to change routing to the outputs, you'd need to stop the roll, make the pan changes in 10 seconds or less (the pre-roll maximum), and then hit REC again, without missing any action.  I dont know if there are Hardware issues (or latency) that we'd have to think about, but if its just a software issue, I'd imagine it couldn't be that difficult of an upgrade, especially considering how amazing the routing options are now.

e.

e.

e.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ethan, yes I'm positive the TS-C is in 29.97ND mode (switch position 1).  I also verified it by turning it on w/o a sync signal to it.  It boots up showing code 29.  I have 2 Denecke SB-3 boxes as well, which syncs perfectly with the TS-C.  I have tried jamming both of the boxes using the Fusion........then waited a couple hours.  I then re-jam one of them.....put the 2 SB-3 side by side and you can definitely see the difference.

I did get a chance to speak with Glenn at Zaxcom today.  He personally took the time to explain the way the Fusion routing works.  He did mention that routing cannot be changed while recording.  He also did mention he may take that into consideration for the next firmware.  Glenn, that would be greatly appreciated if you and your team can make that possible.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm having some problems configuring the outputs in Play Mode. Since I don't always record a mix track, and sometimes I split it in 'Boom to Left Track and Wireless to Right Track' (as the editors required), i found i'm not able to send all the recorded tracks to an output in playback (for instance, if i want to make the director relisten an old take), but i can select only a single track to each output...

maybe an 'all tracks to output' (in play mode) or a playback output matrix coul be a solution in the future...

but i received my fusion12 since 4-5 days, so maybe i have to practice and discover all of his features yet...

v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" maybe i have to practice and discover "

ya' think??

No Mike.  Stop being a jerk.  He asked a very specific question, and I imagine someone here might know.  That's how people learn things here.

e.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The workflow for this gig requires me to send 1 hop to each camera while recording 2 mix tracks and iso tracks. I also need to feed 2 comtek transmitters so the field producers can switch between cam A mix and Cam B mix by switching the comtek receiver's freq.

Hmmm, just as a possibility: route Cam A and Cam B mix to outputs 1 & 2. Split the outputs with a Y-cable, and feed one to Cam A and Comtek #1, an the other to Cam B and Comtek #2. That way, you won't be duplicating any mix outputs on your Fusion.

If I want to reassign a channel to camera A or B in respect also to the proper Comtek send, I would have to do a lot of matrix re-routing. This would be impractical to do on the fly while recording.

Yes, that's a tricky issue. Some of this would be easier with a Mix-12, but my primitive ape-like brain would explode if I had to re-route the Deva outputs every few minutes. I almost wonder if it might make more sense to have specific set-ups preset in the Fusion, then physically change the cables going to the camera transmitters when needed.

--Marc W.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, just as a possibility: route Cam A and Cam B mix to outputs 1 & 2. Split the outputs with a Y-cable, and feed one to Cam A and Comtek #1, an the other to Cam B and Comtek #2. That way, you won't be duplicating any mix outputs on your Fusion.

Yes, that's a tricky issue. Some of this would be easier with a Mix-12, but my primitive ape-like brain would explode if I had to re-route the Deva outputs every few minutes. I almost wonder if it might make more sense to have specific set-ups preset in the Fusion, then physically change the cables going to the camera transmitters when needed.

--Marc W.

Marc,

It's funny you mentioned this cause I've thought about going this route as well.  I may just have a custom DB25 cable made with the splits built-in.  I feel the Fusion's routing is so versatile and flexible that sometimes it makes the simple stuff not feasible.  I really feel it should allow assigning outputs to Disk Tracks and have the ability to re-route recording track assignments on the fly though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tracks to outputs matrix was implemented some time ago.

I don't have my Deva with me right now so can't tell you how to access it, but it's there.

I was asking for this feature for a long time and it was implemented finally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fernando, I was under the impression that feature (route disk mix tracks to outputs) is not available.  I even spoke with Glenn Sanders himself about it.  If you know how to do this, I'm definitely interested in knowing how.  I have been missing that feature on my Fusion.  If the Fusion can route disk mix to to outputs and be able to re-route disk tracks while recording, I will be a happy camper!  Actually, since the Nomad is able to re-route recording tracks while in record mode, I think it's possible with the Deva/Fusion with a firmware update. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes please! Fernando or Glenn? Is this implemented in a current Fusion firmware? I am running firmware from last year because everything has been very stable for me, but if this is now included, I'll update tomorrow.

e.

Fernando, I was under the impression that feature (route disk mix tracks to outputs) is not available.  I even spoke with Glenn Sanders himself about it.  If you know how to do this, I'm definitely interested in knowing how.  I have been missing that feature on my Fusion.  If the Fusion can route disk mix to to outputs and be able to re-route disk tracks while recording, I will be a happy camper!  Actually, since the Nomad is able to re-route recording tracks while in record mode, I think it's possible with the Deva/Fusion with a firmware update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be very nice to be able to re-route during recording indeed.  Hopefully a firmware update can do that (crosses fingers).  As for tracks to outputs, I believe that's already available => Output Mix menu => hit the "more" button for a bit till you see "Output Routing" => then you see a new menu on the right side of the screen that allows you to assign tracks to outs.  I believe that's what you're looking for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, no. Not during recording! Sorry if I confused you.

No idea if it will be implemented. It would make the Deva/Fusion less safe, so I hope they don't implement that kind of changes *while* recording.

I'd say, don't hold your breath on this, because it would mean to re-write all Deva/Fusion software. Again, *I'd say*...

What I meant is that originally there was an

inputs/tracks matrix

inputs/outputs matrix and an

inputs/headphones matrix

and then in playback, tracks went to their logical output (track 1 to output 1 and so on)

Then, recently, a new matrix has been implemented to route tracks to outputs, so you can decide the routing when playing back (tracks/outputs matrix)

Anyway, why can't you do that by mixing inputs to outputs? You can do that while recording using the onboard faders...

And, if there is a need of mixing two different programs to two distant cameras, why they don't hire a second sound team???

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't order my Fusion yet but I pretty much decided to go for it. One quick question about it: Does the Fusion name its files after scene and take? I read about file naming on the Deva and apparently it names its files in a random way. Is it possible for the user to preset the file name?

I know for a fact that the Deva creates a sound report with scene and take and all metadata necessary for           

post to locate the files. But my clients got used to see scene and take on the file name...

And yes, Senator, I did ask the manufacturer and for some reason did not get an answer.

Thanks and Happy New Year!

Gabi

The Deva/Fusion uses sequential file naming. FFFFSSSS.wav (F=folder name, S=segment number)

When Deva III, IV and V was being developed, I insisted a lot in having scene and take in the sound file names because I thought it was the logical way to do it. With experience and use, I find sequential naming of files the very best option! The less confusing and the less prone to errors!

Re-write a file's name is dangerous. Metadata edit can be dangerous if not very carefully done. Fortunately, Zaxcom did this right from the start.

In your sound report you relate the given segment number to a take. And the metadata can be corrected without any danger for the file's and directory integrity. And any correction in the sound report is easily done.

Segment 32 IS the sound file for that take, no matter if it was slated wrongly.

Also you can send the segment number to the slate (Denecke slates) and some cameras to further reinforce the link between your sound file and the camera take. I know only a few do it but it's a feature I love and that has helped solve some misslabeled slates on set, sync and post.

What I do is to set the user bits with shoot day and segment number (which equals sound file name) in the form Dd:dd:Ff:ff, as in D021F007 for shoot day 21 segment/file 7. The Deva can increment the user bits for each take so you can send to your slate and some cameras that useful info (if you use a wireless for timecode, of course)

If I'd be the God of filmmaking I'd make this a standard procedure! LOL! A very strong link, since you have timecode, shoot day and sound file displayed on the (Denecke) slate and sent to camera (Red, Alexa, etc) And this can only be done using sequential sound file naming, so here's one more reason to use it.

>But my clients got used to see scene and take on the file name...

Sound recordist must have the necessary authority to tell clients how to proceed. If you know there's a better way, explain them, don't let them take decisions that should be taken by your department! Work with post and establish the right way of working, do not accept passively something that can be done more efficiently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>But my clients got used to see scene and take on the file name...

Sound recordist must have the necessary authority to tell clients how to proceed. If you know there's a better way, explain them, don't let them take decisions that should be taken by your department! Work with post and establish the right way of working, do not accept passively something that can be done more efficiently.

There has been a lot of discussion on this, whether it is a good idea or not to have the file name be Scene and Take, and I agree with Fernando's assessment of this. The Deva does not make "random" file names as someone suggested, but rather it uses sequential segment numbers, but it does not produce file names that are Scene and Take --- the appropriate place for Scene and Take is in the metadata, not the primary file name. The integrity of the file can be compromised if it is easy to change the file's name based on some decision at some point by the script supervisor. I know that other file based recorders do things differently and I do not have any knowledge that it has caused problems, but I am most comfortable with the way it is done on the Deva --- it just makes sense to me, logically, from my understanding of file names, management, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see linking file names to metadata a sort of primitive concept/procedure, from the times there wasn't a definitive home for it and not all (main) software was able to see it... now metadata is fully developed and has it's place (header, BExt and mainly iXML)

I've been asking SD recently about this and it seems metadata and names are linked in any file naming mode.

I assume that this means that when you correct metadata the recorder will change file's name (scary)

And that if you edit metadata later on a computer, file names and metadata will not match (scary and chaos inducer :) unless you also change file names (tedious and dangerous)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see linking file names to metadata a sort of primitive concept/procedure, from the times there wasn't a definitive home for it and not all (main) software was able to see it... now metadata is fully developed and has it's place (header, BExt and mainly iXML)

I've been asking SD recently about this and it seems metadata and names are linked in any file naming mode.

I assume that this means that when you correct metadata the recorder will change file's name (scary)

And that if you edit metadata later on a computer, file names and metadata will not match (scary and chaos inducer :) unless you also change file names (tedious and dangerous)

This is one the few things I don't like about SD recorders.  Primitive that I am, with SD machines I still use a continuously ascending sequence of file numbers as filenames throughout a whole job as a consequence, and provide correlative documentation to back them up. 

phil p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one the few things I don't like about SD recorders.  Primitive that I am, with SD machines I still use a continuously ascending sequence of file numbers as filenames throughout a whole job as a consequence, and provide correlative documentation to back them up. 

phil p

That's what I'd do too.

IIUC, the pitty is that, to set that kind of file naming, you use the scene and take metadata fields!.

And that is filling the actual metadata chunk. So you can not control naming and metadata separately really. If you then enter the proper scene and take data it will modify the file's name and so on.

I hope they change this asap. Their current file nomenclature system is great for some uses but I don't think is usable on set.

I was one insisting in the need of post-record metadata edit and I happily see they implemented it for the 788 at least.

Same with Sonosax and the SX-R4. Good to see they finally understood and took the effort to implement it in some way.

I hope SD understand soon the need for an optional sequential naming, with independence of the actual metadata. Oh please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I understand your post correctly in that you said you think SD's file naming scheme is "not usable on set?

These are mature recorders in use on sets all over the world!  One is definitely entitled to one's opinion, but that really struck me as "out there"...

Personally, I actually prefer the file being named as Scene_name.wav

...I hope they change this asap. Their current file nomenclature system is great for some uses but I don't think is usable on set.

...

I hope SD understand soon the need for an optional sequential naming, with independence of the actual metadata. Oh please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I understand your post correctly in that you said you think SD's file naming scheme is "not usable on set?

These are mature recorders in use on sets all over the world!  One is definitely entitled to one's opinion, but that really struck me as "out there"...

Personally, I actually prefer the file being named as Scene_name.wav

Yes I said that

sounded stupid, sorry!

Better said, don't think is very usable for me...

but please note I was talking about the unavoidable link between file name and actual metadata

As I said I find the current SD nomenclature great in some cases. To the point that I'd like to have both options in any recorder, being Fusion/Deva or 788T in this case.

But what I find key is file naming and actual metadata being able to be independent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To keep it on-topic, here is one difference between the 788T and Fusion/Deva: the 788 will automatically update metadata to all media after a correction.

As of today you manually re-mirror corrected files on Fusion/Deva after correction.

Another difference I always liked on the SD: file markers during recording.

imo to be included as a standard metadata field

A pretty notable difference is that SD preamp has around 70dB of gain, Deva and Fusion 30 dB. I miss having at least 40 dB of gain with some mics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a lot of discussion on this, whether it is a good idea or not to have the file name be Scene and Take, and I agree with Fernando's assessment of this. The Deva does not make "random" file names as someone suggested, but rather it uses sequential segment numbers, but it does not produce file names that are Scene and Take --- the appropriate place for Scene and Take is in the metadata, not the primary file name. The integrity of the file can be compromised if it is easy to change the file's name based on some decision at some point by the script supervisor. I know that other file based recorders do things differently and I do not have any knowledge that it has caused problems, but I am most comfortable with the way it is done on the Deva --- it just makes sense to me, logically, from my understanding of file names, management, etc.

I agree with these guys, but I admit I was not convinced when I first got my Fusion. Previously I had been using Fostex recorders (PD-6 and FR-2), so I was used to the Scene_take.wav scheme.

1) In the Fostex world, it was a major pain in the neck to rename a file after I heard something slated differently than I predicted. 2) Any editor that initially seems mildly irritated by the file name method of Zaxcom gets won over by the electronic sound reports.

I can't really speak about the SD 700 series method. I have only used them on docu/reality gigs where we jammed TC and didn't worry about scene names or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 for what Paul said.  I came from using a SD 702T first before getting my Fusion and I was a bit uneasy about the file naming deal.  After using my Fusion for the last 8 months, I've come to really appreciate how its file structure is set up along with the built in report function.  It would still be nice to have the "ability" to name the file names to scene_take etc..etc.. though.  Options are good things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 for what Paul said.  I came from using a SD 702T first before getting my Fusion and I was a bit uneasy about the file naming deal.  After using my Fusion for the last 8 months, I've come to really appreciate how its file structure is set up along with the built in report function.  It would still be nice to have the "ability" to name the file names to scene_take etc..etc.. though.  Options are good things.

There is the option of using..... is it BWF Widget? There is some app that can batch process your files and rename the file by pulling the metadata. Not as easy, but an option if post really wants it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forget what Fostex did about it, but what does SD do when files get too large and need to be segmented? I feel like the scene_take name scheme goes goofy when that happens, especially considering some of the unconventional things I have seen on slates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×