Consumer products - Professional work

[Jeff Wexler]

On my last day off of this hiatus I just finished "stuffing" 20 more DVD-RAM disks into the ProLine cases I use. I began thinking again how so many things have changed in our industry in a fairly short period of time. There has been a debate, still on going, about the use of DVD-RAM disks and how they are not so readily available if we were to get into a pinch, finding ourselves short of media (what we used to call "raw stock" whether it was film or tape). Many have hoped that we would all use DVD-R or CD's because "I can go into any Best Buy or Radio Shack" and get these disks. Let's think back to not so long ago when we all used Nagras. Could we ever have gone into any Best Buy and get the professional 1/4" tape we all used? Should we have all gone over to Philips Compact Cassettes, much more readily available?

When I last used the Nagra (many, many years ago now for me) I was using 3M 208 (Scotch to all us really old farts) for which my machines were biased. Sure, I could have gone into a Radio Shack and bought Realistic brand tape (I also remember Shamrock tape being quite popular) but the results, in terms of the recording, would suffer of course using this consumer tape. We always made sure we had enough "real professional" tape stock to do the job. This was one of the things we did as part of the professional job we did.

I have given some of the related issues a lot of thought, the trend we are now experiencing full bore with respect to almost ALL the equipment and materials we use, the fact that we now use products that were developed for large mass marketing to consumers. All of this gear for the most part is considered "professional" because we are professionals, right? I have a feeling that this change, coupled with all sorts of other changes, is at the root of quite a few of our problems now in the industry. These problems being lack of professionalism, lack of training, lack of respect for what we do ("hey, my kid could push that RED BUTTON and I wouldn't have to pay him nearly as much as I'm paying you") and reliance on technological advancements that often have nothing to do with our jobs.

I do think there is something going on here but I won't bother anyone else with these thoughts for now. I will try and formulate a more complete analysis and reflection regarding these issues...  I just wanted to share some current thoughts of mine as I prepare to go back to work on "Rush Hour 3".

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[mikewest]

Jeff, I used Scotch 208, aligned my own Nagras (4.2's) and achieved amazing specs for

an analogue system that had no noise reduction and demonstrated such low print through.

Yes we all turn up now (at times) for jobs where a $4,000 camera is used and there you are with

a minimum of $20,000 worth of sound equipment.

Nevertheless I know that capturing and recording good sound is far more difficult than so many people

realise until after the event, and then it gets expensive to fix up.

It's not difficult to point a camera and cover 1, 2, 5, or 50, people but when it come to sound coverage

it may take a a great deal of skill, equipment and even note than one person to manage the sound capture.

Good sound is not noticed but bad sound is!!!!!!!!!!!

Fondest regards

Mike Westgate

www.mikewestgatesound.co.nz

[Jeff Wexler]

This kind of product, as pictured below, is sort of on the lines of what I was talking about before, the blurring of the recorders we use, the consumer products that can and do creep into our work...  there is a challenge to the perception of our professional work, at the very least a loss of the mystique that used to surround the use of such exotic machinery as the Nagra, when anyone with an iPod can record digital audio.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[obie2]

When 3M stopped making 208 because it was not profitable, it marked a change in technology  for me away from Nagra towards DAT which was at best a consumer product. Quantegy was never able to duplicate with any success the low print thru and signal to noise ratio that 208 had. Though I loved my Nagras and did not want to make a change to DAT,it seemed like we were going backwards with 1/4" and analogue machines because the tape stock that was being made was not as good as it used to be. Lack of profit was the end of 208, I wonder how long DVD-RAM will be available since it seems like a shrinking market of professional users next to a much larger consumer market. Jeff your post made me think about how tied we are to the media that we put into our machines and how we as professionals are tied to a consumer market.

David Obermeyer

[miker71]

With reference to the Belkin device, I love the concept - don't care for the tech spec though, I'd hazard a guess that at the price ($180) the mic preamps will be terrible along with the accompanying electronics and A/D convertors.

Which reminds me, just where is the Fostex FR2-LE ??!!

[Philip Perkins]

A fairly perceptive doco shooter was telling me about a job where he had to do sound and shoot, and which, fortunately for him, had pretty straightforward audio requirements.  He opined that anyone can do sound when it's easy.  Fairly true anymore.  I find that my experience mostly plays is situations in which I guess right about what the filmmaker either wants or is about to do, and being ready.  That's not a film school or a talent thing, that's experience.  Most producers pick up on this concept after a few jobs.  Some of them develop a respect for it to the degree that they will pay for it, and some who understand the situation just as well just figure that they want the best deal they can get no matter what the outcome.  The point about estimating 1/4" tape needs is well taken--I did a lot of overseas jobs where there was going to be no possibility of getting more stock--and we were rolling @ 15 ips!  Estimating was made a bit easier by being able to call up the camera assistant and ask him how many rolls of film for how many cameras he was bringing.  With video as the camera medium that is made a lot more difficult--one has to really over-estimate disk/CF space to a much greater extent to be safe.

Philip Perkins

[chris_bollard]

Cameras (comsumer/pro-sumer) keep shrinking and my sound kit keeps getting bigger (as I was repeatedly told at the start of my current job). Yes, I could work with tin cans and string but prefer to try and get the Zaxcom to run for long enough on rechargable AA on the production  Sony Z1. As I've been told repeatedly by station execs - "Make sure you get ALL the sound. Make sure it's clear. We know our viewers can read - but we don't want them to have to read sub-titles on this show. If we don't have pictures for it and it's good we can still use the sound"

[Philip Perkins]

This year particularly has been a big year for what we refer to as "checkbook cameras", ie

Pana DVX and HVX, Canon HLX1 and JVC 250 etc.  I run into new cameras all the time now, and they are all of the "small, plastic" variety.  This is partly the work-rut I'm in right now, but also reflects a big change in certain sections of the market--people are buying instead of renting.  I see a degradation of what we can achieve picture-wise involved with this, but generally keep my mouth shut about it.  I also hear a degradation in the audio in my return, and am never really sure where that is coming from--after all, the camera in question is NEVER looked at by a trained service tech or even an experienced user/DP.  The folks who buy these things (filmmakers) basically take it out of the box and start shooting, put it in the case when the job is done, and do no more than blow the dust off the lens and charge the batteries when they want to use it again.  So my questions about what I hear go unanswered.  My own audio backup recorder (TC or no) has become an every-job thing now, so I know that the audio is recorded correctly somewhere at least.  I don't care if they think I'm weird when I hand them the DVD--I've made a few converts lately among filmmakers who were having camera audio issues....

Philip Perkins

[ptalsky]

Philip,

I fully agree with what you're saying about the "prosumer" cameras.  Quite often on the projects I've worked on I've got a novice director, and a medium experienced DP.  The director often looks to me to make sure that sound is "right" - yet I still end up fighting with the DP, who insists that there is no reason not to just send sound to the camera and not "gum up the editing process" with having to synch sound.  The funny thing is, it is often those same DP's that are re-setting the sound levels on the camera after I have set them (I use my boom op as a spy for this).  So, I always roll a recorder (actually usually two) and treat that as primary audio.  My preference is to not send sound to the camera, as way too often this ends up used as the production audio.  If they insist, obviously I will do it, but if all they are looking for is a scratch track/dailies audio, then I tell them to just turn on the camera mic - it is good enough for a scratch track.

But again, the funny thing for me is how often I end up fighting the DP - all I want to do is give the  director/producers great sound, and the DP keeps insisting on methodologies that cause mediocre sound. 

Phil

[miker71]

My preference is to not send sound to the camera, as way too often this ends up used as the production audio.

Totally agree with that, although it gets difficult to argue on camera systems that will record "hi def" sound. I just remind everyone that not being cabled to camera means the set is safer and I have freedom to move to get the best mic position (these are usually low budget shoots, I'm working from a bag and there's no cable bashers). Then they bring up the argument to go wireless ....

[RPSharman]

I typically send sound to camera when requested.  But I use the following standard lingo..."This camera is designed to record a picture, my equipment is designed to record sound.  I will be recording and monitoring on my recorder.  I will not monitor the camera, so cannot guarantee its quality."

[studiomprd]

we are moving this topic into turbulent waters now.

Let's see: I've been sending audio to camera-recorders since the 1970's, when it was the bulky 3/4" U-Matic tape machines that were replacing news-FILM 16mm camcorders, and on occasion, I actually got to send sound to CP-16 news cam-corders.  and none of this stuff was consumer electronics.

Well now, Video camcorders have changed, and these replacements for the old "super-8 home movies" cameras are bleeding into the "semi-Pro" (aka "Pro-sumer") arena and as the apparent quality of these devices is superior to what used to be called "professional" we encounter them with ever increasing frequency on gigs.

First of all, the quality of a $999 "Hi Def" camcorder is not really anywhere near the level of any real professional equipment, even SD, and if it really were, then no one would be working with the Viper's and the other real camera-recorder combinations.  I also believe that the audio capabilities of the toys tends to be relatively comparable to the picture quality they have, and matches the price point of the unit.  Sure, 89.6% of the price of the camcorder goes to the sizzle things, like a color LCD viewfinder that turns upside down, a 18,000 x zoom and auto-everything anti-shake imaging system, but generally as you go up in $$, you go up in picture -and audio- quality.

As for feeding sound to a camcorder, it isn't up to me to provide anything less than the best possible feed to the single system recorder, whatever it is, under the conditions and situations I am put into. If the production doesn't have the budget for better equipment, then they probably do not have the budget (and probably not the time or inclination, either) to be coerced into double system.  When I feed a camcorder, I do like to monitor a return from it, even if it is not the highest quality though it also generally matches the units price-point.

I also believe that as a generality, the other production values of the gig will also usually be in line with the camcorder capability as well as the experience & expertise of the "production" in general.

I realize that there are a lot of exceptions, for example "they" buy or rent far more camcorder than "they" understand or can properly deal with, however when such things happen, it is usually pretty obvious.  "They" think it is about the expensive arrows, and not the skilled, experienced archer!

Sure there are some more expensive, more capable, better image camcorders out there that don't have great audio monitoring, but you could tell if you are feeding line level into a mic level input, or if the connection is broken, or if the camera mounted mic is engaged by listening to the return.

I really believe that single system is here to stay!!

[John Blankenship]

<i>

...but generally as you go up in $$, you go up in picture -and audio- quality.

</i>

You're half right... as you go up in dollars, the picture quality goes up.

John Blankenship C.A.S.

[Philip Perkins]

<i>

...but generally as you go up in $$, you go up in picture -and audio- quality.

</i>

You're half right... as you go up in dollars, the picture quality goes up.

John Blankenship C.A.S.

Yes.  A higher end DVCAM camcorder (like the DSR 500 etc) sounds better than a dinky-cam.  And there the progression stops--I don't hear any better audio on the high-end Sony HD camcorders (or Panasonic) than I do at the high end of the DVCAM range, and I'm pretty certain they are all using the same chips and analog circuits.

Philip Perkins