Jump to content

To guide or not to guide.....


Recommended Posts

Would like some input on this question please. I'm a sound recordist working in South Africa, and over the last 10 years or so it became common practice to send a guide audio track to the digital cameras that we've been shooting on. Alexa and Red and more often than not 2 to 3 cameras. Is anyone still doing this? I'm of course talking about decent budgeted features or dramas, where sound and picture are going through a post production facility to generate dailies. Also where TC sync boxes are used to lock TC. I feel that with the auto syncing capabilities of most editing software that this is becoming more and more redundant and personally would like to shoot more film style. I understand the value of a guide track on lower budgeted productions where dailies need to be generated by the DIT or where software such as plural eyes needs to be used to sync the sound. I also feel that it's a waste of comms units, that can be better served elsewhere. And lastly but not leastly, I would also prefer that the director and producers listen to sunk (sic??) sound rather than a wireless guide, that could be prone to drop out or glitches. Your thoughts and feedback please.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Also forgot to mention my current bugbear, whenever cameras go handheld, which is becoming increasingly often, the first thing to be jettisoned is the wireless guide track and don't get me started on the Movi or Ronin.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience I have not run sound to camera on anything narrative. Film or TV.

Whenever I am asked, I explain that a guide track is unnecessary if dailies are being made using TC and/or a slate. You can't start editing on guide track, or the EDL will fail to follow sound if it is not synced right away, which can expensive and time-consuming to fix. Then I tell them what I would charge extra for the additional receivers. Then I ask the DP if he/she would like a receiver on the camera along with everything else. This approach has always worked, except once. On that show, the 2nd AC broke 2 receivers and a few cables in the first week. I stopped putting them on camera. Nobody ever noticed, as nobody was listening to the "guide track".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've worked with a dit here that requests a guide track on the camera.  Both for redundancy and he prefers using the waveform to sync the clapper.  For me, I don't care if I send it or not, if it helps someone's workflow, then great, if not then I won't do it.  I don't like to waste my energy trying to control little things like this, I'd rather work on generator placement etc, the things that actually matter to the final tracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually ask.  If someone wants to be able to do playbacks of camera files on location with sound, then camera has to put up with having an RX on the cam.  If no one cares, I'm happy to not have my RX (and its cable) get the abuse that anything attached to a camera gets.  On a job with an established and tested workflow the assembled depts can decide.  On short jobs where the post flow may not be together at the time of shooting, I guess the default is to put the RX on the camera until someone objects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have stopped asking now and haven't provided a guide for months. If they do want one, they will either ask me for it beforehand or they will realize after watching a playback on set and missing sound. I always have another rx with me fir that, but it hasn't come up for quite some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sound to camera is something that ought to be paid for. That's my view. Our gear is never in more peril than when placed on a camera. The extra abuse and effort deserves compensation. There was a HUGE battle in the UK with PSC/ENG mixers "throwing in" a hop with their gear. Wireless was very easy to talk production into, and was a way of getting revenue from an otherwise low kit rental in that market. The mixers charging for this service were starting to be told, "We won't pay for the hop, because the last guy didn't charge us for one."

I feel that rental rates have gone down and down, and we are expected to supply more and more. We are a business. Running sound to camera as requested by production is fine, but it is something that should be paid for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is an interesting new development. Sending audio to camera instead of video assist, so it's imbedded.

In Los Angeles, running sound to camera for purposes of playback when there ISN'T a video assist operator on set does get into a situation that affects union rules. Video playback is a position in the sound union (long story), but video assist is often not hired due to a high expense. The ability to play back, with audio, on regular HD director's monitors with audio from the SDI stream means that a camera assistant is now replacing and entire crew position. A camera assistant is also in the "wrong" union. 

It's also more common in Los Angeles, at least from my experience, to playback video assist via a speaker at the director's monitors, leaving the audio to the headsets live. So again, no reason to run audio to camera. Just a nice multi-cable or CAT5 system to video assist.

I have read numerous threads about video assist and sound, because it seems more and more common for sound to play back via headphones and not a speaker. The question being whether to put transmitter on the video cart or leave it with us.

On my last film, we had all kinds of quality issues with video system trying to feed transmitter on their cart. Power, unbalanced feeds, etc. In the end, we moved the transmitter back to my cart and ran XLR in both directions. The downside being that we had to stay attached during playback, but the upside being sometimes video didn't go to every location due to time constraints, so we never had to worry if they were there or not. They also stayed far away in difficult buildings with thick walls, making transmitting to directors difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike West your solution of sending a guide to camera which then embeds audio to video assist via sdi is something I've done, and it worked pretty well but this is now an everchanging landscape where a lot of video assist is being done via wireless i.e. teradek which changes our set up yet again. I agree RP Sharman that camera hops should be an extra rental, and often this is the quickest route to the answer of whether to send audio to camera or not.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2016 at 0:18 AM, Ivan Milborrow said:

... and don't get me started on the Movi or Ronin.

What's the big deal?

56de88cbd798c_ZaxcomERXTCD2onRedEpiconMo

56de88e580949_ZaxcomERXTCD2onRedEpiconMo

 

On 3/8/2016 at 0:03 AM, JonG said:

Do it and charge for it. It is common here is Hollywood on any sort of production, but we don't do it for free. 

Also ...   If I'm available - I charge half-day - for audio test - during their camera test.

That gives me, on day-of, a fighting chance, to  . . .  Get in, and out of, their hair - as quickly, as possible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Mexico, lovely pictures but my point is that any audio devices attached to camera are immediately jettisoned when it goes on to Movi or Ronin, including my tentacle sync box which is the smallest and lightest sync box on the planet. My Boom Op has better things to do than constantly run after camera to attach or reattach audio devices. Just saying.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, new mexico said:

What's the big deal?

Also ...   If I'm available - I charge half-day - for audio test - during their camera test.

That gives me, on day-of, a fighting chance, to  . . .  Get in, and out of, their hair - as quickly, as possible.

 

Why only a half day? I have always been paid a full day for a "sync test", or any other kind of camera test or work flow test requiring audio.

And the "big deal" is that running sound to camera requires additional gear, which should be charged for. On some projects the camera audio is used, requiring more expensive broadcast quality equipment sending a link to camera. Most people in production won't recognise the difference between an IFB sending a scratch track and full quality audio. All I'm saying is that sending sound to camera should be an additional charge. It hurts everyone when people give things away for free. It becomes "expected".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give the people what they want but I also charge$$$. Last 2 years I mostly haven't fed camera because the DIT syncs all my tracks to picture. The only time I feed the camera a mix is to get the long distance embedded audio to the Microlites and other long distance transmissions video assist does these days to people movers and Russian Arms etc.

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sticking a Comtek or like device on the camera is no big deal ...but here IS the problem.... It from time to time MAY BE USED.....  I know I know....nobody would do that right!!!!  WRONG...it gets done don't kid yourself....  That non monitored audio sent as a scratch has now made its way as YOUR AUDIO because it was easy for someone down the line to do so....  

  I will give it to them, if they want it, and charge for the units, but, I always do so MUCH lower than need be in input gain on the camera.... This way, if they thought about using it, they would boost the noise so high, they couldn't use it...

 

Remember...it's JUST A SCRATCH TRACK.......  (unless you botch your end... Then you better hope you didn't use my method...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, afewmoreyears said:

Sticking a Comtek or like device on the camera is no big deal ...but here IS the problem.... It from time to time MAY BE USED.....  I know I know....nobody would do that right!!!!  WRONG...it gets done don't kid yourself....  That non monitored audio sent as a scratch has now made its way as YOUR AUDIO because it was easy for someone down the line to do so....  

I did a movie that wanted comtek Scratch it was a RED Shoot. I did not notice about a week into it that they moved the comtek on to the   follow focus that added lots of noise to it we would put tone up and make sure it was good but never listened to it. No one ever said a word when same group came back to do another project they wont hire me as they listening to the scratch track for all the dallies and thought it reflected on my mix poorly. I now refuse to do it unless I send a email to everyone involved telling them they must sync my audio before watching dallies and that scratch track must be locked and hidden before it is sent anywhere. I still try to refuse at all costs though no need for it IMHO 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, new mexico said:

Where in my post, Robert ?... Does it say anything? - about: "Giving my equipment away" ... "For free"?

Kindly re-direct your vitriol elsewhere. Thank you.

Settle down. Where in my post did I say you were giving gear away for free and to stop it? I was speaking in generalities. People do give away camera links. They shouldn't. That's all I'm saying. I did, however, ask why you don't charge a full day for your test days. That's not vitriol, just an honest question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find interesting as discussions such as these develop, is the the number of people who seem to think that everyone's gigs are exactly like theirs, and the same needs should always apply.  That just isn't the case.

I work a wide variety of gigs and success depends a lot on understanding the specific needs of each.

One size does NOT fit all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great point John. There is no one size fits all. 

For me, as a doc guy mostly, I try to find out if the camera sound will be the primary or if they want isos. I try to discourage the "let's just do both" mentality which seems all too common in reality TV. Make a choice producers! Charging appropriately helps the decision making process for them.. Either I want to concentrate on a good two channel mix to camera or I want to simplify the mix (mono), record isos, and provide camera with whatever is easiest for me, is small on camera, allows a camera mic to also be used, etc.

Having the wrong person judge your ability as a mixer based on the "guide track" you put on camera is a serious risk. Non-technical types cannot understand the difference nor the kind of battles we fight getting wireless equipment working well. They won't understand that the camera guide track was a low priority issue for you compared to all the real work you did.

You have to be careful with lesser quality wireless gear on camera. I don't like using Comteks at all for this purpose. Often the camera puts out too much RF garbage and it swamps the Comtek receiver with interference, and (like in Whitney's story) no one knows until the director asks for a playback off camera.. The same problem can happen with a G3 which otherwise can sound quite good. I've found that what you must do is check the receiver on camera with the transmitter OFF. Check for interference when installed on the camera. Even 2 feet away from the camera body could be a drastically different RF situation. Unfortunately, I've found that when the camera is putting out gobs of interference it's usually broadband across the whole tuning range of your receiver so you're kind of F'd. So you either stay closer to camera, use a better receiver (411/SR bigger, heavier, more power) or boost your transmitter power.. Pick your compromise.

So it's a judgement call. I've had producers tell me, oh yeah your mix on camera was great so we used that (g3). Scares me a little but I'm sure it did sound good and if they're happy I don't care what they used. The finished product was fine. If they never hire me again because there was some issue with the scratch track on camera and they were too ignorant to sync the sound then maybe I'm better off without that client.. 

Personally, I do like the G3 for this job when there isn't the above mentioned camera interference issue.. I think it's a good compromise of audio quality, RF performance, build quality, and replacement cost for on-camers use. Also has nice features that help with this job.. Good RF and audio metering, variable output level, easy to make all the needed cables, etc.

I do hate the extra time it takes on set though... Can seriously drag you into the weeds when there are more important things to do. For me, that may be the biggest strike against providing a camera hop. I've spent way too much time wearing an AC hat trying to make things nice for the camera ops.

This is also one of those perennial conversations we have here. Always good to hear what others are doing (or not doing!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a producer get back to me mid-production regarding the scratch track. I made it clear beforehand (by email to everyone concerned) that this would be for on-set playback purposes only. There was no problem for the first few days, but then we had a few days with bad RF conditions and there were dropouts on the scratch. The Producer asked me to improve the scratch, but I asked her how I was supposed to do that? I already re-scanned everyday, but I can't listen back to the take on camera, and even if I did, would we do another one, because the scratch track wasn't good??

It was a low-budget production, too

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...