Jump to content

How would YOU send a mix-out to camera under (these) conditions?


MattinSTL

Recommended Posts

I've been doing a reality gig with (2) Canon C300s. Working wirelessly is easiest, so that's what we're doing. Both cams are shooting a lot of up-close action and both are equipped with mkh-60s. Now please don't pull this off-topic into "a mic mounted on a camera is your first problem"... yes, I know... I KNOW... but the reality is the closest mic wins, we're not matching timecode (cameras loosely sync'ed via time of day TC)... and I'm still booming and lav'ing everyone up.

All I'm wondering is what the consensus is for mix-out to wireless hop from my 442...

Since both cams have a really good mic on them... and the editor will DEFINITELY want a scratch-track to make his job easier (since everything isn't jam-sync'ed TC)... and I'm booming, laving, and recording everything... my assumption is that it's best to just send the lav mix to both cams on one channel while supplying my recording each day for MY boom track... as well as to cover any possible hits or interference on the two camera hops.

Would you do anything different?

1. Would you make a case for hopping both channels (boom and summed lavs) to both cams, splitting boom and lav the usual way.

2. Would you hop both channels only to cam A or cam B and let the other cam keep it's on-cam mkh-60 active?

3. Would you sum EVERYTHING out of the 442 and send that complete mix to both cams on a single wireless (per cam)?

Again, my assumption, under this bit of chaos and to make full use of the editor, is to let each cam keep it's mkh-60 going and send my summed lav channels to ch2 on both cams, then when the cams are in someone's face they'll be getting good audio anyway... and the rest of the time it's nat-sound on each cam while I supply my boom track (plus a more guaranteed lav track since it's one less wireless link, and of course I'm monitoring so I know if there's a problem).

Now before you state the obvious, this Producer isn't saying what they want... they just want me to give them the best, and I'd assume easiest, audio results from each day. I'm used to working with guys who only want my recordings if something went bad at the camera... In the kind of work that I do they want the edit to go fast and easy... which means good sound in the cam. I kind of pride myself on that and want this client to be thrilled with what they hear right out of the cam.

So how would you utilize (2) 2-channel cams, each equipped with a good mic... 3 to 5 "talent" (wireless lavs)... and all of this wirelessly linked to your bag?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't mix to camera as my primary audio. I'd put on camera mic to Channel 1 and If they insisted I'd do a scratch track to channel 2 with either a 411 RX, comtek or G2 for scratch and use with pluralize only. On my last few c-300 projects we have gone with a NTG1 on camera and timecode sync box on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If '4) Ask them what they want' Didn't yield anything useful, I'd probably go for option 2, but also make sure the cameras are jam synced with my 744T a few times a day. Worth emphasising though, that in some (most doc?) situations, a decent on camera mic is an absolute Godsend for everybody, and well worth doing, especially if you provide them and charge for them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ProSound... thanks, that's pretty much what I've been doing.

CCalandro... have you ever worked with a Producer who looks at you like, "What do I want? Just make it sound good!"

They will most likely be happy with anything I do for them, yes I will ask (again)... but for one situation that's come up I said we didn't have what we needed and the reply was, "you'll figure it out"... so... yeah... no worries... I alway do. I'm just wondering what the guys on the board here would SUGGEST if they were in this situation... and there was no input (by choice) from the Producer.

What would you expect the best choice to be?

I should add that sometimes, because of the reality situation, both cams aren't shooting the same thing... one cam may break away for a couple minutes and I glance at the producer and give a nod like, "follow him, or stay with cam A?" During the day, sometimes I shadow one camera... sometimes the other... sometimes both... which is why I think having each cam keep it's on-cam mkh-60 is a good thing.

Jon, I need to start making my posts more concise. Both cams each have their own mkh-60 on them (pretty damn good mics)... so yeah, that's how I'm feeling also... I think I'm just going to stick with letting each cam keep it's own on-cam mic... and just send my mixed lav track to each cam's ch2. There is no jammed TC by the way... only set time of day TC).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if that's the case, put your boom on ch2 of one camera, and your lavs on ch2 of the other. Leaving ch1 the shotguns on the cameras.

You know what? That might be the answer. I'm going to offer this suggestion... that way all audio is as ISO as it can be... and all tied to the 2 cams' footage that'll be matched up in post anyway. All synced to picture on separate tracks and both cams still having their own on-cam mkh-60 as an option (or reference if needed).

There's an editor rough-cutting right on site... so I'll ask him how he feels about it, AFTER asking the producer of course! I'm guessing the editor would rather have the same audio on both cams, so he doesn't have to cut all the footage with constant awareness of the independent channels on each cam... but I'll see what he says.

Thanks for the suggstion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't like having different audio on the various cameras, I've found it makes for confusion in post and requires you to have more hop TXs in your bag. I like your original idea, and that's what I've mostly done when allowed. I like having a good mic on the cam--the camera is often much closer to some action than I am and that frees me to cover other things. In post I've really appreciated this boom+lavs+cam mic approach and made a lot of use of the camera mic. I'd make it clear that they do need to sync up the recorder audio BEFORE they start to cut, and then decide as you go what makes sense for you to hop to the camera ch2 in order to have an overall sense of what's going on sound wise in each shot for on-set playback and for the editor's first look at dailies.

philp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not jam TC? You said you are recording, what to? How many tracks? You mention a 442, so I would guess a 744 or 702 or Zoom?

What I would do... check with post to confirm they will use your audio.

*If* you are running a multi-track recorder, the idea of sending a mix or lav mix to cameras makes sense. Post could sync to your recordings with Pluraleyes. Again, I would confirm with them that they will pull your audio. Some field producer people think post is using the recorder, but they are 99% using camera audio. If that is the case, then you will want to approach your mixing differently. Either way, you are going to get the audio, you just want to make sure you are handing it to them in a way that it will be used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would strongly suggest the producer to record my iso tracks. At least on 2 tracks plus timecode ( SD552) one for lav the other for the boom).

If he doesn't want to record iso, I would put the mkh on track 2 and keep track 1 for "my sound". Then I would choose on the set what is the best to send to the C300. If lavs are good just the lavs (or lav plus a little of boom), if lavs are bad, if talents hug themselves (!) I'll send the boom. With the 442 you can do the quasi instant decision by putting the pan on left or right output.

But the best solution, especially for reality is to record iso tracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just use a multitrack, scrap the hops, jam the TC, get a TC slate, keep the onboard 60's and call it a day?

I can tell you exactly why not: It is reality TV. They don't know what a slate is, much less will they EVER want to interrupt the "natural flow" to actually do something that will help continuity or editing.

Sadly, I just had a very similar situation on a crazy reality gig. I don't remember which cameras they were using, but it was a Sony that was 4-track capable and they were using SRA hops in the slot mount. 3 different camera teams, 2 cameras running wireless (2 each) plus 3 more wireless into my bag for a total of 7 channels... ALL in the same block, and the WORST POSSIBLE block chosen for the city we were in. This is a recipe for wireless hell.

All wireless coordinated by me using FreqFinder (which I hadn't updated at that point, so the TV data looked very confused) and the B camera was off by himself tracking 2 lesser characters (those wireless direct to him, I have no knowledge of how they sounded and had no control other than frequency coordination)... I was sending to the A camera with my 2-track mix from my 442. No timecode beyond loose TOD, and the camera operator told me he was listening... Although with the sound level in the gig, I don't know how he would have heard much of anything.

The wireless into the A camera sounded OK when I was able to check it at the beginning, and what was coming into my bag sounded good throughout the night once I finally found a couple tiny open frequencies that didn't get constantly hit with interference. Note to producers: When there is a MEGAWATT TV station barely 15 miles from your location... Pick some wireless gear that isn't in the same block, hmm? *facepalm*

I was not asked to run a backup recording... VERY glad I did however. No feedback from the client after the gig, but I hear through the grapevine that the wireless on A camera was completely useless, and they were pissed about having to spend "lots of time" syncing everything up. I don't know if it was distorted somehow, wireless hits (possible) or operator error - the level knobs were not shielded, and right by his face... Just that it is "unusable" for them.

Apparently, my backup recording sounds just fine, so the problem was entirely within the wireless hop or camera that I had no way to monitor, and wasn't hearing word one from the camera guy who DID have headphones on his head the whole time. They should be able to sync SOMETHING with Pluraleyes, even if there are wireless hits... But the camera guy also had told me that "sometimes one of the SRA channels crashes and he has to power the whole thing off to get it to work again.".... *facepalm again*

Again, no feedback from production after the fact, but the result of delivering good audio on a backup recording, and NOT delivering the perfect on-camera audio that production apparently cared the most about (when they chose poor gear and a poorer block)... Is that I will not be working with them again. Their decision.

Give them what they want, and you may have to guess what that is. Apparently, saving their production by giving them a backup that they didn't ask for, rather than just relying on non-monitored camera hops... Is not appreciated. Sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell you exactly why not: It is reality TV. They don't know what a slate is, much less will they EVER want to interrupt the "natural flow" to actually do something that will help continuity or editing.

Sadly, I just had a very similar situation on a crazy reality gig. I don't remember which cameras they were using, but it was a Sony that was 4-track capable and they were using SRA hops in the slot mount. 3 different camera teams, 2 cameras running wireless (2 each) plus 3 more wireless into my bag for a total of 7 channels... ALL in the same block, and the WORST POSSIBLE block chosen for the city we were in. This is a recipe for wireless hell.

All wireless coordinated by me using FreqFinder (which I hadn't updated at that point, so the TV data looked very confused) and the B camera was off by himself tracking 2 lesser characters (those wireless direct to him, I have no knowledge of how they sounded and had no control other than frequency coordination)... I was sending to the A camera with my 2-track mix from my 442. No timecode beyond loose TOD, and the camera operator told me he was listening... Although with the sound level in the gig, I don't know how he would have heard much of anything.

The wireless into the A camera sounded OK when I was able to check it at the beginning, and what was coming into my bag sounded good throughout the night once I finally found a couple tiny open frequencies that didn't get constantly hit with interference. Note to producers: When there is a MEGAWATT TV station barely 15 miles from your location... Pick some wireless gear that isn't in the same block, hmm? *facepalm*

I was not asked to run a backup recording... VERY glad I did however. No feedback from the client after the gig, but I hear through the grapevine that the wireless on A camera was completely useless, and they were pissed about having to spend "lots of time" syncing everything up. I don't know if it was distorted somehow, wireless hits (possible) or operator error - the level knobs were not shielded, and right by his face... Just that it is "unusable" for them.

Apparently, my backup recording sounds just fine, so the problem was entirely within the wireless hop or camera that I had no way to monitor, and wasn't hearing word one from the camera guy who DID have headphones on his head the whole time. They should be able to sync SOMETHING with Pluraleyes, even if there are wireless hits... But the camera guy also had told me that "sometimes one of the SRA channels crashes and he has to power the whole thing off to get it to work again.".... *facepalm again*

Again, no feedback from production after the fact, but the result of delivering good audio on a backup recording, and NOT delivering the perfect on-camera audio that production apparently cared the most about (when they chose poor gear and a poorer block)... Is that I will not be working with them again. Their decision.

Give them what they want, and you may have to guess what that is. Apparently, saving their production by giving them a backup that they didn't ask for, rather than just relying on non-monitored camera hops... Is not appreciated. Sad.

Man, this is infuriating! Thankless morons. I hate to oversimplify it by saying you're better off without a client like that (I know I'm rarely at the level where I can turn down work) but in this case, you probably are better off without them. Either way, it's frustrating to have people in decision-making positions who really have no clue the value you (potentially) bring to a project.

I do mostly long-form stuff, but I also fill gaps in my calendar with non-scripted network stuff like you describe here -- I sure hope I never run into these morons. Hang in there man.

~tt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any time a hop is working I think it is a very good idea to run a backup recorder on your rig. TC or no, isos or no, I've just had way too many problems with link audio, even with good gear and coordinated freqs not to do this. They may not want the files during production, but they'll want them very badly if (when) they discover there's a problem with the sound for shots they want. By all means send whatever audio to whatever camera they want (that they'll pay for, that you can manage) but record the backup for yourself, for your own career karma.

philp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just send the cameras' channel 2s' the track you think sounds the best. In some cases that might be the boom. In others the lavs. Or if the producers really don't seem to care one way or the other, save yourself the stress of caring too much and just send a sum of all the mics, or faux mono mix, or if you have the ability--a real mono mix. It sounds like they're just trying to avoid synching your recorder's .wav files in post. But you need to let them know there's no getting around that if they actually want good sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why some of you are asking the producers how they want the sound mix accomplished. That's your job. They aren't the sound experts, supposedly you/we are. A big part of our job is educating them on the audio needs, especially on reality shows.

Keep in mind that ease of work flow goes a long way. So, you may very well have to provide a solid mix to camera. If there are too many cast/talent to adequately provide a good mix or if you have to boom and mix and run around then educate them on a cost effective way to still achieve the needed sound mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there are too many cast/talent to adequately provide a good mix or if you have to boom and mix and run around....

Yea... About that... ALWAYS on reality TV, at least at the level I've been at, and especially on this gig I spoke about above.

then educate them on a cost effective way to still achieve the needed sound mix.

How exactly would you suggest going about that? When they have decided how they want their workflow already (I'm usually a fill-in day player or as yet-another-in-a-long-string-of-single-day-crew either for a traveling show that doesn't travel the primary sound mixer... (explain continuity to them?) Those decisions seem to be long past. Maybe if I was hired onto a project right at the beginning, I could have some input to the workflow decisions...

The producers I have worked with on a lot of these network shows already think they know how they want it done. I'd love to be able to educate them that trusting a camera to record audio simply to save some assistant editor / intern's low-wage time at the risk of ALL THE AUDIO for the show is a stupid idea... But I'd also like to continue working. They don't want to hear the word no, and they obviously don't appreciate someone proactively saving their ass by not trusting unmonitored technology. All they want is things to go perfectly smooth.

I guess I need to look into becoming an assistant editor in charge of syncing picture - based on how many producers I've worked with that ONLY want to record to camera... That AE job must be a VERY high paying one, and cost more than my daily rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell you exactly why not: It is reality TV. They don't know what a slate is, much less will they EVER want to interrupt the "natural flow" to actually do something that will help continuity or editing. ... Again, no feedback from production after the fact, but the result of delivering good audio on a backup recording, and NOT delivering the perfect on-camera audio that production apparently cared the most about (when they chose poor gear and a poorer block)... Is that I will not be working with them again. Their decision.

Doh, been there, done that. It's appalling how many crews go out these days and just "assume" that the audio on camera will be enough for what they do. The higher-budget reality shows routinely do use 788's and multitrack all the time, but everybody else is fairly clueless, in my (admittedly limited) experience. I'm not sure if it's a schedule issue (because of the extra time needed for syncing), a lack of good assistant editors, pure ignorance, or a combination of all of the above.

I've encountered two different reality crews who were using cameras that could not jam to each other, plus they were shooting 29.97 drop, plus they were using RecRun rather than Time-Of-Day. I asked the producer, "what's the problem with doing an external sound recording if you already have to re-sync the two cameras with each other?" and he looked at me as if I was from Mars. The answer I was given was, "we've always done it this way." Rather than say, "you've been stupid and ignorant for how long?", I bit my tongue and said, "OK, we'll find a way to make this work."

It is appalling how ignorant a lot of these young crews and producers are, and they don't think this out to make post-production as seamless and simple as possible. Camera mike on each camera, slaved timecode, time-of-day, non-drop, slates when practical, and multitrack sound recorder with matching code... that absolutely, 100% works and is optimized for pretty much every situation. If the cameras split out and need to cover different things, slap a wire on one or both channels and be prepared for two crews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Camera mike on each camera, ---Yep, they had that, b/c these were 4-channel cameras. One of the on-camera mics was an MKH60, don't know what the other was.

slaved timecode, ---Uhm... Not so much.

time-of-day, ---We did link my recorder and his camera *eventually* about 1/3 of the way through the evening, but both of us had forgotten about Daylight Savings Time so the time was wrong... And the timecode cable didn't want to work, so it was more of a visual approximation. They didn't ask for timecode for the gig anyway, and hadn't paid for a sync box from me. *sigh*

non-drop, ---Yea, about that one... They were shooting **25** non drop, for something that will air on an American cable channel, yet the crew was all Europeans. Marc, how much problem is THAT going to cause?

slates when practical, --- You're funny.

and multitrack sound recorder with matching code... ---They only wanted a 2-track, and didn't even really want the bag recorder. I did that myself, which the camera guy seemed happy that I had.

I agree with you - you can certainly tell which are the higher budget reality jobs. Either they provide a multitrack bag fully rigged... Or they want you to have one (and I don't get that gig since I don't have that yet). The lower budget ones... Must make editors cry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm happy with the discussion this opened up... seriously. At least I don't feel "alone" on this kind of gig.

Yeah... for those of you who don't experience this often... the situation is pretty much what I call home. That's what I meant when I said asking a producer what they want from me yields, "I don't know. YOU'RE the sound guy! Just make it sound good!"

Again... why I posted here. It's about ease of post-flow... plus just simply giving them what they want, even if they don't know what they want. So far... yeah... no complaints, but I just wondered if I should take it in another direction... or offer to.

This is budget work... i.e. bang it out and have it ready to turn around quickly... ideally everything right on the camera. I'm using a 442 feeding 2 cams (through break-aways when the shoot allows, and wireless most of the time. My recorder is only an HD-P2... (for insurance, not expected to be used)... not 702 or 744. Like others have said... in this setting there's no slating or jam-syncing, etc. It's very much INSTANTANEOUS like... "lav who? we're already rolling? okay no problem"... and I have to stab a vampire onto somebody in 10 seconds, and be sure it won't make any noise... and also won't be seen on cam... sure... simple. No worries.

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who's gotta' work like this... honestly, it makes regular days seem like CAKE... I almost fall asleep on a normal day after one of the reality days..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mattin,

I am on a reality show right now using a very similar setup: SD 552, with OLD Lectros as camera hops to Panasonic HD Cams. In this situation, all channels are panned right down the middle. The L output goes to Transmitter A, and the R goes to Transmitter B. Even though they are usually sending the same mix, I have the option to pan certain sources L or R if the cameras start shooting all over the place. This way, each camera only gets the audio from the talent they're shooting (at least, that's the idea). Keep the mounted boom on Channel 1, so at least they have something to fall back on.

I use the built in recorder as a back-up. Too many things can go wrong not to have your audio recorded on something within your control. Obviously the 744 doesn't have a built-in recorder, but even if you have an old Fostex, use something. It's very frustrating to do sound the wrong way, but that's all there seems to be these days. If the rate is good, just keep cashing the checks. Hopefully post will complain enough for the folks at top to open the purse. Hang in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just use a multitrack, scrap the hops, jam the TC, get a TC slate, keep the onboard 60's and call it a day?

+1

If there are mics mounted, why are you sending a "scratch" track? What it sounds like you're doing is sending program audio that is planned for use. If that's the case, and if lav/boom split is the norm, then maybe lav to one cam and boom to the other might work (2 Tx and 2 Rx - however).

But my vote... No hops. PluralEyes sync with the onboard mics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were shooting **25** non drop, for something that will air on an American cable channel, yet the crew was all Europeans. Marc, how much problem is THAT going to cause?

No such thing! There's only 25frame TC -- no non, no drop!

There's a nice explanation about timecode rates in the Sound Devices manuals; in particular, they talk about how and why to avoid 30-frame DROP, which technically exists, but 99.99% of most machines and systems can't use it. The whole reason to use drop-frame is to have VT and sound timecode match the clock, and 25fps already does.

Why not just use a multitrack, scrap the hops, jam the TC, get a TC slate, keep the onboard 60's and call it a day?

That's hard to argue with, provided you can convince the client to pay for it! I still believe in camera hops, but I've been chagrined on occasion to find out the editors opted to not sync up my carefully-prepared BWF files and instead just used what was on the camera. Lucky for all of us, the camera hops sounded fine, despite the extra A/D + RF trip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...