chrismedr

from the specs about 6 times as long as an NP-L7S battery - so I'd say pretty long : )

as far as I have gathered one can use the PFL buttons to monitor single input channels. I wouldn't say you "need" a separate TC generator - you can record perfectly accurate sync audio as long as you keep the unit powered up or resync the camera after power down. on the type of shoots where the F4 is the primary recorder, that is not too bad of a compromise (most people will go that way instead of hooking up a separate TC generator which doubles the recorder cost). obviously I'd love to have all the 633 features for the price of an F4, but since that's not possible I prefer they have kept price down to 700USD instead of going for slightly better and higher price - makes it a good primary recorder for people on low-budget shoots and a decent backup recorder.

Have a look at this topic here, most solutions will also work on a boom: http://jwsoundgroup.net/index.php?/topic/28454-sweat-protection-cheap-and-easy/ I'd just use a small clear plastic bag and seal the opening with gaffer tape. on heavy rain, use a double layer (two plastic backs separately sealed) and mount it so the opening points downwards (or at least make a small loop in the cable just before it enters the bag).

yeah, they could probably do that, but then they would probably sell five times less, plus quite a few people would consider going full in and spend a bit more and get a 633 which is just the nicer machine to operate, even if specs would be nearly the same. I guess the reason for the 1/4 line-ins is that they consider musicians just as much of a market as filmmakers.

jup, eliminate all those ills and you pretty much have a 633 which costs fives times as much ; )

I don't have a clue what exactly happened but as a bystander it appears to me that with a little mediation of rado everybody now either has their money back or working equipment, so I'd say well done everybody and hope the WTB WTS section continues to be a great place for trading!

I think the only angle that really would make sense is horizontally to the right left (when looked from the back of the camera), i.e. so it goes over the fan - if it goes up, or right, it extends outside of the body, downwards it will cover the card slot. As Jim noted, most shoots where absolute compactness is not needed will leave room to the back to open the card slot anyway, so a straight connector works well in those cases.

it's the audio in which is special, the timecode connector is standard.

I hear this a lot - that the lens is more important then the camera, that it defines the look - and I don't know where it comes from. If I have the choice to shoot a film on an Arri Amira (35K) with Samyang lenses (under 0.5K per lens), or with a Canon 750D DSLR (under 0.5K) with Arri Master Primes (over 20K per lens) I know what I would choose. This is an extreme example, but it would still hold true I I was offered a Sony FS7 (8K) instead of a 750D. Not that the lens don't make any difference, but cameras have a very strong look, and you can get cheap lenses which look great. I agree this might be less the case with audio recorders, I for one would have a hard time hearing the difference between a MKH50 recorded to a 744 or to an F4 even in an AB test (while I can immediately spot the difference between an Amira and an FS7 with the same lens). All that said, good lighting, set design and blocking are 10times more important then any camera or lens specs. Kinda like good mic placement and room acoustics will be 10times more important then expensive mics and recorders. chris

lol... and you can lean lazily against a cool car with no cables attached to the recorder while doing so.

not sure if that's a good comparison, most lenses for Canon L are not really that much cheaper then Zeiss SLR (factor 2-3), while here in europe the 744T still goes for over 5000EUR and the F4 will come in around 700EUR, so that's a factor of 6. so it's probably more like Samyang vs Zeiss. but yes, there are still people buying zeiss glass despite the cheaper options, most likely because of the different properties and intended use. like people who need autofocus will buy canon and those who need manual focus buy zeiss. kinda like if I need really nice preamps, limiters and reliability I would want a 744 while if I need 4 preamps and a mix track I would probably get an F4. And there's a big difference in what I would buy if i needed a work machine that I use 100days a year on paid jobs and can charge rental for, or if I just do an unpaid film with friends once every two years.

Seems from the response of gkim that it was indeed the (internal) gain on the line level input of the 633 (easy to overlook because the dial only adjusts the post fade). chris

is this the latest version? on IPS TV of this yeas IBC, they talk about the problems they had to get the right quality from the suppliers the last few years, and that they happy that they now finally solved it. edit: here:s the link, about 6:40 into the vid:

so it works fine on a mac mini?

Just wanted to say that you folks do hands down the best videos of any tradeshow I've ever seen. Good humour, pleasant friendly tone, great information - just really fun to watch. Thanks!

yeah, FCPX runs pretty well on a modern Mac mini as does Premiere (although both have GPU acceleration built in too, so a beefy graphics card will speed them up as well). I know quite a few young people who like working with FCPX, but I know even more who hate it with passion (usually the ones coming from FCP7 or AVID). What they should have done is put the guts of FCPX in an application with the same GUI principles like FCP7/PP/Resolve, because the performance is really great.

Lightworks is not really free anymore. well, it is if the only thing you need is an youtube export, but for any reasonably professional workflow you'll need the pro option which is 135EUR per year. Also, it's not terribly good and nobody uses it ; ) Resolve is the much better option in my opinion, but as said it probably won't run well on a Mac mini - might be ok for simple HD work with ProRes though, so if you try it I'd be interested to know how it works.

FCP7 unfortunately has become pretty outdated for modern camera codecs (it still works rather well if you only work with ProRes and don't do heavy effects). Resolve has become really useful lately, they really added a lot of editing functions and updated the GUI so it's pleasant to work and I often use it on small projects. I thought it only works on computers with dedicated GPU though, but maybe they changed that? The other options are FCPX, which is a rather cool app with high quality and fast rendering, but if you're coming from FCP7 then you probably will be frustrated with the timeline (at least I am), AVID which is great if you like AVID (I don't) i.e. the interface and workflow suits you or Premiere CC, which is probably the most similar to FCP7 and great if you also do After Effects work, but the subscription price is hard to swallow if you don't edit for a living. I switch between all five because I get involved in finishing projects where the choice has already been made. For smaller projects they all work fine, it's only once you do very specific things when the choice becomes important (like, if you need multiple editors to work on the same project, go avid, if you need after effects go premiere etc). If you describe the kind of projects you do and what functions you need the most then it might be easier to give sound advice. also FCPX, Premiere CC have a free trial and Resolve is free anyway, so you might want to play around and see which works best for you. chris

you can see it sometimes when there's a reflection in a window or mirror... simply amazing how he pulled this of, all with gear that by todays standards is cumbersome and low-fi - not to speak of lugging everything alone including film rolls, changing rolls, changing tape, getting exposure right, getting focus right, getting levels right etc.. even more amazing, fantastic film! one of my all time favourite documentaries.

completely agree.. I did a shoot on 35mm last month, we did a test side by side with an Alexa before hand, everybody agreed that the film dailies looked much better. And I cry when I see "Celebrities" or "Otto e mezzo" and see how much worse quality of black and white is 50 years later : ( Sorry for side tracking - somehow it is connected with getting gigs and qua lit gear though

actually these days the situation with camera gear is very similar to sound... a 3000USD Sony A7s makes a lot better pictures then a 50000USD camera ten years ago, and if with a good DoP the A7s will look much better then if you have a mediocre DoP using a Red or Alexa (similar to how a good sound recordist will make better recordings with a Zoom F8 and some Rode mics then a mediocre one with a Cantar and some Schoeps).

So if a client would ask you to record 3 wireless and 1 boom and a basic mono mix, and you could only choose between the 552 and the F8, you'd take the 552? I know I wouldn't (and that's coming from a 633 user). Sure the F8 will be a bit inconvenient, but it will allow me to get the job done, while the 552 doesn't, no matter the skill set.

I think whether or not a 552 can still repaired is not the main concern in this specific case... If I needed a 5channel mixer with 2channel backup recording I would largely prefer a used 552 over an F8 even if it wasn't possible to get it repaired (because chances that it fails are slim and a replacement can be bought for not too much money if I'm really unlucky) If i needed a multitrack recorder I would largely prefer a F8 over a 552 even it's not as good a brand name (because, obviously I can't record multitrack on a 552) If i needed both, I'd probably save up for a 633 or used 644

It really depends what kind of jobs you are looking for... for example, if you only do ENG and go straight to camera, any decent mixer will be perfectly fine. If you want to do feature film work (even indy) you probably want multi channel two system sound these days. I'd say rent gear until you know what you need, gives you a chance to work with different gear and see what you like and buy accordingly. chris

not sure what you're asking? but my answer is, do a full end to end workflow test with the same gear you're planning to do the shoot and see if it works as you need it to - better then any theory. chris