Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About octophonic

  • Birthday 07/22/1970

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wellington, New Zealand

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Um… this might go on a bit, anyways. I'd like to share the new AVID whitepaper on Digital Cinema Aquistition for discussion. It arrived yesterday and got me thinking about a few questions to put to the experts on the front line. My experience has been setting up workflow for films through Pre-Prod into Production and then completing Post Sound to delivery. A unique sound position, interfacing with Directors wants vs Producers needs, and all the R&D in between to streamline Camera Dept and Picture Editorial to Post Sound and Mix. This work has afforded me a huge respect for the Production Sound dept and I've been lucky to work with some of the best. The entire pdf is attached below but (to shortcut all the other BS) the paragraph I'm curious to hear any comments on is this... Audio Workflow Considerations Regardless of camera type, the decision between using a single or double-system audio workflow is based on a variety of factors, including crew size and budget. Single-system workflows can be considered more convenient, with picture and sound already in sync as part of the recording, but this method does come with some drawbacks. One particular challenge is that the camera operator will need to pay attention not only to composition, focus and movement, but audio levels as well. A double-system workflow solves this issue since there is a separate recording device and a person dedicated to monitoring the audio. Double-system recording also offers the advantage of being able to capture more than the 4 audio tracks typically found on digital cameras. Third party applications are often used as part of the dailies process and can provide the ability to sync picture to double-system sound. While many of these free applications are useful for creating “review” dailies not intended for actual editorial, they don’t usually parse or retain enough of the audio metadata, making audio conform rather problematic in post. My thoughts are... With the transition from film to digital acquisition it has always been a good idea to have embedded audio (even just the mix track) in the picture media. This has obvious advantages for dailies, etc, but more importantly as a safety check for Editorial against what the Sound Mixer is recording versus the Camera Dept. Having pretty much dealt with every combination of TC/fps/pull up/down/sample rate cluster freaks over the last 20 years this is hugely helpful when "fixing it in post". Usually the problem has been created in post by clever editorial software or inexperience when sound and picture come together. Sometimes from a problem in Production. Either way, too late to fix, make it work. There are a range of great products for returning the audio and TC to the camera, and some have hugely helpful metadata embedded which can be wrapped up in XML or MXF data to help out in post. For example linking camera audio to original Sound Mixer Media (TC and Userbits or Roll #) or as a safety check for TC slates to show what slate/take the mixer has used versus camera on actuation. Questions. Is technology at a level where we can reliably provide an AES return of up to 4 channels (preferably wireless with TC & metadata) to camera on the shoot day, so that the suggestion of the camera operator having to be concerned with levels is not an issue? If not then can the Sound Mixer be sending an AES feed to devices like the new range of Video Devices or similar for picture and sound capture, to avoid syncing dailies? With metadata to automatically relink to wider Poly Files. Is anyone doing this already and if so how is it working out? Some may be already be supplying this to video village. Sound rolls/splits would still be delivered later with sound reports, but as a secondary delivery for the wider discreet channels. Does this make your job easier or is it complicating things unnecessarily from your POV? I know how time consuming post sync of sound and picture can be with editorial trying to turn around the volume of media created with digital cameras. I also know how militant some Editorial Depts can be the first time a software link of TC and Metadata fails in post, and fair enough. How close are we to a workflow where camera audio is a reliable digital copy of the mix track (with TC/metadata) so that the camera guy can shoot, picture dept can edit, and soundpost can link to your discreet tracks with confidence in post? Thanks for making it this far, please chime in so I can give AVID some feedback. We assume too much in post. Also, thanks for this site Mr JW. It is a great resource/legacy for now and the future. digital_camera_workflow_whitepaper.pdf
  2. I've worked this way too and have this ability on the Amek CIBs I use at present. My preference is to eliminate the other analogue stage and have a smooth gain travel on one pot, with digital out. Discussed this with Tim Farrant at Buzz yesterday and he is prepared to mod one of his pre's to do this but of course that's in the analogue world. Ideally I want the front end as the 788t running as TOD backup and passing digital to Pro Tools for the actual session media.
  3. Thanks senator Mike for your warm welcome to the forum. Everyone has to start somewhere to become a regular. Sound Devices have emailed back with different info although it contradicts itself... "The balance controls are a post trim attenuation. There is more attenuation on the opposite side of the mic. For example your channel 1 mic would only get up to a 4dB boost when over to the left but will have a full cut on the right side. The iso track meters will follow these levels so you would see the track clip if it does clip." So you are saying the balance is not post trim as a fader but a digital add/boost to input so what I see on the meters is still accurate for input clipping?
  4. I do a lot of ADR recording with various preamps as a front end for Pro Tools. The best have a single variable gain up to 70dB with no indents on the pot and digital out as AES. The 788t with big trims would be ideal, especially due to the fact that the pots themselves are virtually frictionless. Something often complained about in the field.
  5. Thanks Marc. I had that info from the manual as well. Don't think there is a way to connect both at once but what I was suggesting is that if the CL-9 can transmit Trim over USB then surely it would be a firmware update to enable the CL-8 to act in this way also. Would anyone else prefer to have an option where the CL-8 was trim rather than post trim fader?
  6. Post 2 3 more and I can post a WTB: CL-8 on the notice board. Bear with me please. I normally use the input linking feature for matched pairs/quads, MS, or my 7.1 Holophone. Always with the balance set to C as I want to restrict any fiddling to post production after the recording. So, lets say I link two channels with completely different mics/characteristics and they present with significantly different input levels at the same gain setting. By using the balance (which I know is NOT pan) to even up the relative levels to the record tracks, I'm assuming this is digitally boosting the lower level and attenuating the stronger signal to make up the difference. Here's my question... Is the balance a post trim attenuation/boost like a fader? Or is it adding/subtracting to the trim level on either side of the trim input to achieve the result? If it is a post trim boost/cut then does the clip indicator still engage when the higher of the two mics hits the red, even though it appears attenuated? Does this even make sense? Cheers Chris
  7. First post ... testing 1, 2, is this thing on? I think I know the answer but was wondering if the CL-8 can be used as the input trim controls rather than post trim faders? The CL-9 has dedicated trims and connects via the same USB port so surely this would be possible with a firmware update? Cheers Chris
  • Create New...