Wireless camera hop with return feed.

[Rasmus Wedin]

Hi!

First poster here at the forum, hi all! So, I've been reading a bit about what people use for wireless camera hops and I'm surprised so few seem to be using a wireless return feed. I just finished a job using 3 Senny G3s for camera hop, two channels to camera and a single mono feed return. Once I managed to space the transmitter and receivers apart, it worked great.

Is it the hastle with extra gear and frequencies that is the reason? Or is it the risk of the frequencies interfearing with eachother? To me it just seems like such a risk leaving the final judgement to the camera man. And even a mono feed tells you a hell of a lot more than most cameraman ever will. I would love to hear your opinions and solutions.

  /Rasmus

[studiomprd]

Welcome aboard, and interesting question

I have always believed that getting a confidence monitor back from the recorder (camcorder) is an excellent idea and practice.  I originally used a Comtek TX for this, but the Senn Evolution series wireless are very cost effective, and well suited for this use.  Even if the audio quality is not ideal, the confidence of knowing that the audio has made the round trip without major defects is, I believe, well worth it.  Zaxcom has particularly noted this situation and offers some elegant, and high quality, solutions with its IFB return capabilities. An Australian company has also been working on a Bluetooth based solution...

[bperlman]

I think one of the reasons more people don't add a confidence return is the resistance by the camera folks to putting more stuff on their cameras. A single unit solution like the Zaxcom w/IFB return is a great way to do it but too expensive for many mixers.  Also, for those who record back-up (more often primary) to professional recorders the confidence return becomes less critical. If the meters are moving, it's good enough. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just the way thing are often done.

Bruce

[Jack Norflus]

The new Zaxcom QRX-100 has already incorporated this in the unit.

The QRX can receive up to 4 channels of audio and with the TC / IFB option you can send TC to and from camera and mixer - as well as feed the QRX audio return out of the camera which will send return audio back to the mixer.

[Rasmus Wedin]

Thanks for the answers guys. I'm very aware of the new Zaxcom QRX100Q, but since thats just come out, I was more curious as to what people genrally have been using the last couple of years, before the all mighty QRX. I know intermodulation can be a problem and I totally understand that most cameramen don't like too much gadgets on their cameras. I guess those too might be the main reasons.

So is the QRX becomming the standard for camera hops? Is there any competition?

[Audio Daddyo]

I have owned my Zaxcom hop for 6 years and use it 90 percent of the time. I have never used a wireless return.  In fact I’ve never met anyone that does. 

If I were to use a wireless return then I would feel the need to constantly listen to the return to assure that there were not any drop outs or other intermittent wireless problems.  I wouldn’t want to be locked into only listening to the return while recording especially if it is a mono return.  I want to be comfortable soloing any of the talent's wireless off my mixer with out worrying that something is happening to my wireless feed to the camera.

When I use my Zaxcom camerahop I require that the cameraperson is always listening when he or she is shooting.  That way there is no chance of missing any wireless intermittent problem.  With the Zaxcom if there is an RF problem the audio just mutes in both channels so it is easy for the cameraperson to recognize a problem.  I find that most camera people I work with are use to monitoring the audio and actually like being able to hear the dialog clearly.

The other advantage of having the cameraperson monitor the audio is that then the dialog will often drive what the cameraperson shoots not just the image.  And I really like that!!

Andy

[r.paterson]

Hello

I use a wireless return all the time as well as running a backup recording, the need for the return is not only being able to dip in and out to double check signal is getting to cam, but when doing something with a presenter and  doing PTC there is always requests for playback of takes so i have the wireless return routed to a DIY switcher which can feed IEM mixer feed or return feed..i have found placing the return  transmitter at the battery end of the camera carry handle keeps it out the way and doesnt sem to be too much on the camera.

Richard

[Audio Daddyo]

Richard,

I agree if you have a backup recording then dipping in and out of the return is not a risk of missing something since you have a back up.  But most of the cable networks that I work for don't want to have to deal with a back up recording.  They just want to use the camera's audio and if there is a problem and you offer them a back up file then it just becomes a hasstle for them.  I find it is better to know of the problem while it is happening and the camera person will alert me if there is a problem.  In the 6 years I have been using my zaxcom hop I have never had an editor get back to me telling me that there was a audio problem due to a wireless link.  I have had very few problems with my Zaxcom but the few I had were all caught by the cameraman.  One was over heating and the other was a shorted power cable.   

[Rasmus Wedin]

Very interresting answers guys, thanks. I probably should have pointed out that I mostly do ENG/reality-stuff where we record all the audio to camera. There is neither time, nor money for back ups. If you use a separate recorder, with the cam-audio as a scratch, I can fully see how a return feed isn't practical.

I too like it when camera people listen to the audio. My point is, you can't count on them listening as critically as you do. Most cameramen I've worked with have been great, but I've worked with some not so good too: Using a camera hop without return feed, I've had a cameramen refusing to wear headphones, another one neglecting to have them in, resulting in lost audio due to dead batteries, and a third simply not bothering to tell my about "faulty-cable-noises" until at the very end of the day when the shot was done. To me, it's just such a releaf having that return feed. Especially when you're using hired gear.

[Jan McL]

Very interresting answers guys, thanks. I probably should have pointed out that I mostly do ENG/reality-stuff where we record all the audio to camera. There is neither time, nor money for back ups. If you use a separate recorder, with the cam-audio as a scratch, I can fully see how a return feed isn't practical.

I too like it when camera people listen to the audio. My point is, you can't count on them listening as critically as you do. Most cameramen I've worked with have been great, but I've worked with some not so good too: Using a camera hop without return feed, I've had a cameramen refusing to wear headphones, another one neglecting to have them in, resulting in lost audio due to dead batteries, and a third simply not bothering to tell my about "faulty-cable-noises" until at the very end of the day when the shot was done. To me, it's just such a releaf having that return feed. Especially when you're using hired gear.

Just pausing a moment to thank Dog for cart-based work during which I and my team alone are responsible for the sound. Amen.

Thanks for the impetus to prayer, Rasmuswedin.

-- Jan

[André Boisvert]

I'll pretty much echo what Andy said. I've also had a Stereoline for 6 years, and don't use a wireless return for the same monitoring reasons. However, I find it harder to convince some cameramen to listen, so I always run a backup (a $300 Edirol R-09HR or an Olympus LS-10. Going line in, both machines do the job). This year, for the first time, the backups saved my butt. After getting the RF trap's cable hooked on door handles and the like, the strain of each event caused a hairline fractured of the solder of the tx's antenna connector; full RF became intermittent, and distance became critical. It wasn't a big deal for post to patch the holes with my recordings.

I have a much greater peace of mind running an inexpensive backup than I would relying on a wireless return.

[Jan McL]

I'll pretty much echo what Andy said. I've also had a Stereoline for 6 years, and don't use a wireless return for the same monitoring reasons. However, I find it harder to convince some cameramen to listen, so I always run a backup (a $300 Edirol R-09HR or an Olympus LS-10. Going line in, both machines do the job). This year, for the first time, the backups saved my butt. After getting the RF trap's cable hooked on door handles and the like, the strain of each event caused a hairline fractured of the solder of the tx's antenna connector; full RF became intermittent, and distance became critical. It wasn't a big deal for post to patch the holes with my recordings.

I have a much greater peace of mind running an inexpensive backup than I would relying on a wireless return.

+1

While I have not had a dog in this particular fight for a long while, this seems to be a great option for the peace of mind that is the bottom line for all of us who record sound, regardless of platform / genre.

Last time I did ENG style bag work, hard wire to camera was the only option, and of course, there was the return from the headphone out that could be monitored, but the quality was sooooo annoying that I could not listen to it for long.

In retrospect, can't believe I didn't ever run a backup.

Recorders are so small these days...

Camera operators so focused on picture...

ENG gear takes such a beating...

Other peoples' gear...

You bag guys got stamina & guts

-- Jan

[r.paterson]

hello

another reason i always run a backup as well as having a wireless return , is that occationally when it all goes tits up in the heat of battle, you can quickly have a listen back on the backup recording to see how bad it actually is and not ask camera to rewind tape for a listen, or for being able to provide for a transcription later when suddenly they(production) ask for it..

Richard

[Jon Gilbert]

I'm another ENG/Doc bag recordist, and I've never used a return for the camera hop, it seems such a flawed concept that I've always preferred to run a back up, which has changed format over the years. I'm lucky to have mainly worked with cameramen who did listen to the audio I was sending, and like Andy says, this can bring them a better idea of what to shoot, so it's a win-win situation, and on the occasions when the cameraman is obviously not paying attention, I keep an extra eye on the meters on the back of the camera just to make sure they're getting something!

[jason porter]

I have a Senny G2 set that I sometimes use as a return feed with my Zaxcom stereoline.  It doesn't cause any interference or range issues, and if the camera person complains about the weight, I ask them to wear headphones instead.  Some like listening, some don't.  I also occasionally run my Edirol R 09 as a backup,  depending on the style of shooting.

I am rarely more than 10 feet from camera.

[Peter Mega]

I've never worried about a return either, when using my zaxcom hop.

The other thing is, how do you know if the return feed isn't the one having interferance or drop outs?

I know digital drop outs and analog drop outs sound different but if someone is using an all analog or all digital send and return system, how do you know its not the return dropping out. You might stop a take for nothing!!

Just a thought.

Peter Mega

[Jon Gilbert]

I've never worried about a return either, when using my zaxcom hop.

The other thing is, how do you know if the return feed isn't the one having interferance or drop outs?

I know digital drop outs and analog drop outs sound different but if someone is using an all analog or all digital send and return system, how do you know its not the return dropping out. You might stop a take for nothing!!

Just a thought.

Peter Mega

That's precisely my reason for not using one!

[RPSharman]

I'm with Jan.  Thank you "whatever-power-you-believe-there-to-be" that I don't do a lot of bag work.  But whenever I do, the mono mix goes to camera if requested, and my recorder gets everything else.  They can use whichever they like, and I do not listen to the return nor does it matter if the DP listens.  I just cable up or "wireless" up and trust that the camera and sound gear will keep working after my initial test monitoring.

I don't believe that there is "no money" for the mixer or the production to be able to use a back-up recording.  Little recorders are so cheap, and with very little effort on the mixer's part to keep some sort of time of day relationship with the camera, patching up an occasional audio problem with the camera audio is a pretty painless post process.

Robert

[jason porter]

Sounds like a good use for my new, yet to be officially named "bloop slate" (shameless plug!?)

[Eric Toline]

Sounds like a good use for my new, yet to be officially named "bloop slate" (shameless plug!?)

Ok, I have an idea. Let's have a contest where everyone suggests a unique name for your "bloop slate". Then we can vote on the best entry. The winning entry gets a free slate. Could be fun and it takes the strain off of you to come up with a name. You could post the contest as a poll for a specific period of time. It's too bad your last name isn't Betty, then it could be called "The Betty Bloop Slate". OTOH you have to be old enough to get the play on words.

Eric

[Cloud Wang]

currently i'm using RX900S&IFB100 together, ifb100 receiving camera's output and tc out,i can choose to monitor the IFB signal via STA's audio output(which go into my sonosax SX32's return in).

i'm glad that most of cameramen i worked with they willing to monitor the camera sound too,and with this setup,some of the directors also want to listen the sound,i can just give them ERX receiver.

the most important reason for me to use IFB100 is because it can broadcast timecode to my TRX&STA, when they use REC-RUN,the TRX will automatic go into recording model, really easy for the ENG/DOC jobs.

Cloud

[studiomprd]

"  how do you know if the return feed isn't the one having interference or drop outs? "

it depends, but mostly you don't, but at least you are aware.

more importantly, you can determine if there is any potential problem, and mostly, you can tell there isn't any!

[Rasmus Wedin]

I don't believe that there is "no money" for the mixer or the production to be able to use a back-up recording.  Little recorders are so cheap, and with very little effort on the mixer's part to keep some sort of time of day relationship with the camera, patching up an occasional audio problem with the camera audio is a pretty painless post process.

Well, I live and work in Sweden wich is a pretty small country. Small population = small production budgets = VERY small audio production budgets. The thing is, most shows here use a break-away cable, very few use wireless hops. Its only the realy extreme run-and-gun type of shows that do, and even there I've had to fight for that gear. Many office-folks regard it as a luxury for us on production, rather than a neccesity.

I know the type of recorders you're talking about and how cheap they are these days, but even so, they would not see it as me "saving" the audio, but instead me costing the production extra money and costing precious time in editing. The mentallity is that all the audio should be on-board camera, problem free, all the time.

I've never worried about a return either, when using my zaxcom hop.

The other thing is, how do you know if the return feed isn't the one having interferance or drop outs?

I know digital drop outs and analog drop outs sound different but if someone is using an all analog or all digital send and return system, how do you know its not the return dropping out. You might stop a take for nothing!!

Just a thought.

Peter Mega

That is true and a big draw back. But to be fair, I've had that exact same problem with the return on a break-away cable, stopping the shoot, when it was only the return that was faulty.

[ProSound]

I have a Senny G2 set that I sometimes use as a return feed with my Zaxcom stereoline. 

I have done the G2 method as well on a few occasions but not often. On most reality shows I am feeding two camera with zaxcom rx the same audio feed and I am also recording via the SD card as well so the audio is going three places. Fortunately most the ops i work will listen all the time so I am lucky.

I would never do a run and gun shoot without my wireless hop being leashed just stinks

[Audio Daddyo]

Well, I live and work in Sweden wich is a pretty small country. Small population = small production budgets = VERY small audio production budgets. The thing is, most shows here use a break-away cable, very few use wireless hops.

I know the type of recorders you're talking about and how cheap they are these days, but even so, they would not see it as me "saving" the audio, but instead me costing the production extra money and costing precious time in editing. The mentality is that all the audio should be on-board camera, problem free, all the time.

Most of the camera people I work with prefer that I go wireless.  I usually only go tethered for sit down interviews or lock down camera situations.

The mentality of the clients I work with here in the US is the same as your clients.  That is, all the audio should be on-board camera, problem free, all the time, and that having to screw around with backup audio files would be a big pain in the butt.

The exception being RED and DSLR shoots where I use my SD744.

I do own a small Marantz recorder but to do run and gun at the speed that I often do would be hard to keep up with running a recorder too. 

Andy