Jump to content

Sebi

Members
  • Posts

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Location
    Hamburg, Germany
  • About
    Location Sound, Sound Design
  • Interested in Sound for Picture
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. When recording dialogue etc. all these boom and lav tracks have to be aligned anyway. I once did a shoot with a 788 and an additional MixPre-6 for one scene with lots of lavs and plant mics. Both were only TC synced and the tracks were phase-aligned later. No big deal. I've done some recordings (concert scenes with playback and recording at the same time) where the whole setup was basically a console with Dante and a Dante Virtual Soundcard in my laptop. Dead simple and never had any issues. Depends however wether it's easy to set up a console or if you have to move around a lot.
  2. You access it by opening the zip on the right like you would to access inputs 3/4. But it‘s a little tricky for sure since that‘s where I hide my Tentacle. But I rarely use the control knob tbh. Headphone volume is set, gain and other settings I do mostly on the touch screen and for meta data I use the Wingman App.
  3. Right now I'm using a MixPre-6 in a K-Tek Stingray MixPro bag with two Wisy Dual-Receivers and I really like it. It's super tight and I would definitely recommend using low-profile TA-3 and Hirose for the receivers. Otherwise there's not enough space on the bottom. In the front pouch I have my NP-F power distribution with two batteries which run at least 12 hours with both receivers in use. On the outside I have two ew500 tx as hop lines for boom and camera and a Tentacle Sync is attached on the inside of the right pouch. All in all it's 3.5 kg and I can carry it with only a hip-belt. So yeah, that's my bag for the MixPre which works fine for me. Hope I could help.
  4. I don't really need to add anything to what's been said but the topic just reminded me of a recent video I saw on the URSA channel. Location Sound Mixer Stéphane Bucher talks about some scenes and the first scene they discuss is from "House of Gucci" and it's basically the same challenge. With the addition that the off-actor/actress was not even on set but in a hotel room. Don't know if that's any additional help to the question but I think it's interesting anyway how it was done.
  5. That's good to know that the "deeper" sockets of the LF work fine with a straight cable. I only worked with the Mini so far with the TC socket being at the very end of the body so it seems like Arri adressed the problem with the LF I guess.
  6. +1 on keeping TC locked with whatever TC box on the camera. I find it also important to mention that you should check the TC sockets of the camera, especially when unfamiliar with Arri. It's basically a little different with every model and with the Mini LF you might get into trouble with a straight Lemo plug because usually they rig the battery for the camera pretty close to the end of the body so there isn't much space for a cable to stick out at the end. It's worse with the Mini then with the Mini LF where the socket is a little "deeper" into the body. But unless you want to annoy the AC it's best to ask for the right connector (at a rental house) which then has an angled plug in the right direction. They should know if you ask for the specific model.
  7. thanks everybody! Really appreciate your post Fred! When I started a few years ago I was actually kind of bothered by how unsatisfiying it is to work with lavs and started to wonder why they seem to be a go-to procedure. Of course I then also learned about multi-cam shoots, noisy locations etc... And even in smaller budget movies I worked on which didn't shoot multi-cam I had the experience that the use of lavs was always expected by production (no matter how they shot it) and 2nd boom for example was too expensive ("not necessary"). So there seems to be some sort of pattern here that I've seen elsewhere while researching this topic. This being mainly that most developments in technology made faster workflows possible but didn't really safe much time since the amount of work that was expected also became more. And on the other hand that developments often just make it possible to keep up with the pace of the production that is being pushed. What's really interesting to me now is the aesthetical aspect you mentioned and how these decision were often not really made by the sound person.
  8. Hope you don't mind me asking but this is where it's starting to get interesting. I mean, I can imagine what you are referring to and how the introduction of wireless changed the workflow and eventually the sound of cinema dialogue. But still I'm only making assumptions based on what I know about how it's done today and considering what was technically possible let's say 50 years ago. So in order to not just make wild guesses I would deeply appreciate some of these insights and personal opinions of the ones who have actually been there and experienced the transitions. As I said, if you don't mind of course And I'm not going to quote anyone on anything without asking! Right now I'm just collecting some insights. Thanks a lot!
  9. I've seen a few field recordists use the Manfrotto Nanopole for their trips. It's a pretty light-weight stand with an integrated boom so you can just dettach the feet. I think it's originally meant to be used by photographers. I haven't tried it myself and don't do a lot of field recording but it seems like a pretty handy tool especially when travelling. EDIT: Apparently some of the Manfrotto lightstands are also called Nanopole but that's not what I meant. The one I saw people use is the MS0490c I believe.
  10. Thanks for the hint Jez! It's actually quite amazing how much stuff is available online. SMPTE has a digital library with documents and every journal article reaching back to 1916... I even have access through my students account here in Hamburg. Same for the Barry Salt book which is also available through the library-network so I'll definetely have a look at it (even though I prefer getting an actual book from a library instead of pdf's...)!
  11. In Hamburg it's Zeigermann Audio. Well, I wouldn't call them my favourite Wisycom reseller since I never bought anything from Wisy there but pretty much everything I use. It's the obvious choice for me since I'm located in Hamburg but they're nice people with good coffee (if you would visit) and lots of experience. Volker Zeigermann is a production sound mixer himself who has done several improv-movies for ARD with some 30 channels of wireless or so. https://www.zeigermann-audio.de/onlineshop/special-offers/ In Berlin it's Kortwich Filmtontechnik. I've only been there once while shooting in Berlin so I can't say much. But they're well-established and probably the biggest pro-audio-dealer for location sound in Germany. https://www.shop-ftt.de/de/search?page=search&page_action=query&desc=on&sdesc=on&keywords=wisycom NOTE: Since the websites are in German I should mention that Zeigermann lists prices excl. VAT and Kortwich incl. VAT! You probably would've figured that out but just in case... They both list the set of MCR54 + 4x MTP60 at 8.950 € excl. VAT.
  12. Thanks for the reply and the paper! I'll definitely have a look and there's probably lots of parallels to cinema in some workflows. Even though the narrative aspect of sound for TV is not what I'm going to look into. Yes, that's something I'm still unsure about wether I want to cover that aspect or not. Productions adapting budget and deadlines whenever any process can be done faster is the reality every department (and probably most jobs outside film business, too) has to face. It's impossible to ignore it and I will have to consider this at some point but I might try to approach the topic from a sort of idealised point of view and then put that into context of the industry. The "business" aspect of movie making affects it all but that alone could fill a thesis that I'm sure a lot of production students have already written.
  13. Hey everybody! I have a little research question concerning production sound throughout the history of cinema since the first “Talkies”. This applies to sound-post as well but I’m aware that there are less people on the forum with that focus. I am actually still studying at university and while I’ve been pretty busy with projects over the past years I’m now focusing on finishing my master’s thesis. A main subject of it is the influence of technical progress in audio equipment on the storytelling through sound as well as the factor of limitations/constraints in creating sound design. Which effects did certain developments have on the work of production sound mixers/sound editors/re-recording mixers and in which way were they influential on the narrative and the way movies for cinema were made in general. There’s more aspects I’m going to look into but I hope you get the general idea already. Even though I’m way too young to have any experiences with a Nagra recorder, it’s not really a big deal to do the research on the equipment itself. There’s good documentation and I already enjoyed reading some of the “Nagra stories” in the very rich thread here on JWS. We also have some historical devices at university. What I’m curious about is some individual perspective of (former) professionals on how certain tools have changed your way of working and which were maybe the most influential improvements or which “revolutionary” developments weren’t actually changing anything. Or were some major events not even changes in the sound department but rather other departments which then effected recording sound heavily (for better or worse)? There’s probably as many opinions as people but this is exactly what I won’t find in the books. I’m also anticipating some differences between the US and Europe for example. I have a feeling that especially in the 60's most of the dialogue in US-cinema was production sound while a lot of French Nouvelle Vague and Italian movies where using mostly ADR and I even read that some didn’t even record production sound at all. Whether this was simply an artistic choice of certain influential filmmakers or if it was rather a lack of satisfaction with the possibilities of production sound at that time is another interesting topic I want to look into. Every experience and opinion is much appreciated. Thanks a lot and best wishes from Hamburg! Sebi
  14. Well, it's been some years since a former professor of mine forced us students to calculate A->D conversions by drawing funny trees of 0's and 1's and checking Least-Significant-Bits etc... But I'm pretty sure that the quantization noise actually makes a difference, technically. The AD-conversion in 24 bit adds a noise floor which is no big deal when recorded with a proper gain staging. The point of 32 bit float is that the gain staging has no effect on how close to the noise floor the signal is being recorded and wirtten into the file. So you can actually record the loud trombone after the whisper at the same gain stage in a 24 bit file without the trombone to clip the signal. But if you increase the whisper in post to make it audible you will increase the noise floor of the conversion which will probably be too close to the whisper-signal and you get a noisy recording. This is not the case with 32 bit float. Of course there's still the limiting factors of mics and pre-amps but just to answer to your statement: there is a technical difference which is not to say that there are a lot of these extreme situations where you would actually need this advantage. I remain open to be proven wrong of course.
  15. No, they already had the CORE amplifier.
×
×
  • Create New...