Jump to content

Bouke

Members
  • Content Count

    133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About Bouke

Profile Information

  • Location
    Netherlands
  • Interested in Sound for Picture
    Not Applicable
  • About
    I'm a developer of software tools, both ''off the shelf' as custom work.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,004 profile views
  1. Makes no sense at all to me. The whole discussion is about having more bits to accomodate dynamic range, that has been proven a myth, unless some form of 'dynamic compression' is used. It's (not from ears, but from technical perspective) an 'emperors new cloths' thing. Now: I AM post! What do you think, that I want overmodulated files? For your jazz, do you really think that if you record -40 the low parts will be bad? Theory says that it won't make a difference. You all bitch about more dynamic range while you never ever use the space you have, and let the limiters kick in. Makes no sense to me at all, unless you do fast turnaround stuff that has no post, but in that case 16 bits limited would be good enough for rock 'n roll.
  2. Can someone PLEASE tell me what this is all about. You have UNCOMPRESSED, that means, 'AS IT IS'. How much better do you want it? As stated by others better than I am, there are no electronics better / exceed the space 24 bits can provide, so why bother? Of course, in post, in a chain of effects where the first effect amplifies and the second one reduces, more bits might be of aid, but in recording, I totally fail to see the advantage. You all record raw now. This is what comes out of your mics. Period. Higher sample rates I can understand (Read, high frequencies are not sines but become blockwaves, that are made back into sines due to the mass/responsiveness of the speakers.) Please, someone, record the same souce twice in 24 bits, once normal, once 30 dB lower, and amp the second one by 30 dB in post, and do a phase reverse test. Then tell me I'm stupid.
  3. To emphasize this (from an IT background), the difference between 21 and 24 is NOT a small difference, it's 700% ! (Compared, you can also say it's 8 times more.) Each bit doubles the total number that can be described. 1 bit is 0 or 1, so 2 possible values 2 bits is 0 up to 3, so 4 possible values 3 bits can describe 8 4 bits can hold 16 values Largest number in 21 bits is 2097150 compare that to 24 bits: 16777214 Classic! (Spinal tap)
  4. Why is that? It is very simple. You only change 4 bytes describing the sample rate so the playback will be slightly slower. If needed, simple math can change the BWF timestamps so they match again. (If needed, since there is no lock between sound and picture. will be handy if there is a TC driven clapperboard.) WaveAgent can do this. (Test, as it is destructive, and it's not always clear what the functions mean. (eg Preserve Start TC.)
  5. Please, do the math properly. It's not hard. 32 bits / 8 equals 4 bytes. With a 8 channel recording, and sample rate of 48000 samples per second, your data rate is 8 hannels * 48000 samples per second * 4 bytes per sample = 1536000 bytes per second 1536000 / 1024 (to get from bytes to KiloBytes) = 1500 Divide again by 1024 to get from KiloBytes to MegaBytes, and you have 1.46 MB/sec Then you have to add a tiny bit for header / metadata info, but (unless you have a Cantar) that is just a few KB.
  6. Bouke

    Tentacle Syncs

    From my limited knowledge (from this forum) it 'learns' the actual clock speed of the TC generator and adjusts to that. That is not the same as genlock (you still can't mix two cams, no one will have a setup like this, but for heavy effects it might be problematic, for sync sound it's of course more than good enough), and it is said to take some 20 min. at least, not really practical in some situations. (No idea if you can toy around with the cam while it is 'studying'.) And no, even if my software is branded with the TCS logo, I don't get anything fromTCS sales.
  7. The issue is with the cam, has nothing to do with the content of the sound. Now, it 'should' not be an issue if not Avid misbehaves. And it 'should' also not be an issue, if the internal TC generator would be of better quality. (The cam can slave, but it seems to drift after just 40 minutes, as I was told offlist. Hence AUX seemed a better option.)
  8. Be aware; GH5 has 8 frames of silence at the beginning of each clip. (At least in the 4K material I got.) Now, Avid MC can read AUX 'sorta kinda' from these clips (it's hit and miss), but it will set the start TC to the first found LTC frame, thus being off by 8 frames. Other applications (including mine) are smarter, but do warn your clients if they are on MC (Not sure if that is a fixed offset though, but a quick and dirty fix is to (positive) offset the BWF's by 8 frames.) How do I know? <rant> Got a job to convert 5 shooting days of GH5 material to something else, since MC cannot natively read these files. No sweat, I did so. Got complaints that BWF was out of sync. When studying the files more closely, I gave the following recommendations: If you use a LTC generator / TXRx or alike, it works best if you actually plug it in and turn it on. If you do #1 correctly for just a few clips, make sure your cam runs in Free run so the rest can be (educated) guessed. If you insist on recording REC RUN, do NOT reset cams TC gen to a previous used TC If you already have made viewing copies for the client, you best tell me that before I decide to create new, unique TC's While you're at it, set the cam clock to (about) the same time as the sound recorder just in case. And, if you offload, retain recording time / date as a final backup. If you don't do anything of the above, be prepared to spend a couple of grant or accept that the camera sound WILL be used. you all can guess what happened on these days.... </rant>
  9. Hi Ari, No worries, I'm not as closed / afraid as eg Tentacle. And there are very little small developers left. (I once tried to have a bunch of us cooperate, to make the sum larger than the parts alone, but that failed sadly.) What I don't get, why would you participate in a race to the bottom? Tentacle shook up the market, I think it would be very difficult to earn some money here. Software development is relative cheap, hardware not so... Did you spend some time surveying the market?
  10. Ok, Put your money where your mouth is. Send me a video file, an audio file with an offset of X, and and XMLs that imports in PP and FCP. (As synced clips, not as a timeline.) Oh well, just the XML is good enough...
  11. Create an XML to populate a bin for PP / FCP with a video and audio file to sync up. Can you do that?
  12. Dude, have you ever looked into the mess of PP / FCP XML on synced clips? I can give you the offsets on a silver plate with my own software (you know about my LTCconvert I assume), but that does not make for an easy XML. If you can do that in a couple of days, name your price and I'll pay.
  13. Define 'easily' Have you done this yourself? It is NOT easy. (At least not for me or I've done this already.)
  14. I just started, but the noise floor is so high that there is not enough headroom left.
  15. :-) You mean, me. There is nothing wrong with open source, but I agree, there is no such thing as 'free'. But do not mix 'free' with 'open source', it's really different.
×
×
  • Create New...