Jump to content

Timecode slate: (A) Useful, or (B) Just for show?


Bob K

Recommended Posts

With most NLE’s these days, every shot includes a thumbnail of the first frame. I think a slate can really be useful if all departments focus on ensuring the slate is in frame and focused for that initial frame. This allows an editor to have clear visual slate information available for every shot as they scroll through their bin. 
That being said on my own projects I skip the slate. I do have timecode jammed between all devices and it works great to get things real close but I then use the waveforms for the final decision on sync. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2023 at 10:23 AM, Bob K said:

Phillip,
 

I worked in news during the Betacam SP videotape era.  The sound was recorded on the camera tapes, and we used Dolby NR to minimize the noise.  (We also recorded consumer-grade audio cassettes that went directly to a transcription house.)  All that camera sound was broadcast on network news programs, coast to coast.
 

As to "how is that audio getting to that camera?  On a wireless?"  Yes, on wireless, just as the audio gets from the mics to the mixer.

 

 

 

Kent,
 

Thanks for that additional info.  The "reality" sounds much like shows I've done, except with fewer mics, and perhaps an additional soundman.  I'm glad it's you doing all that you describe, and not me.  We could probably start a whole new thread on the topic of "what the producer wants."

RE: Betacam, me too, bro, and 3/4" and 1 inch type C and even 2" on TPR-10s before that.  Please do not hold up the quality of the audio those devices recorded as being good audio, because it wasn't and we knew it then.  Anyone who had recorded audio on a Nagra and then moved over to those VCRs could hear the diffs immediately.  The Dolby C used in some of them mostly made matters worse.  If I delivered audio that sounded like what those recorders layed down today I'd be fired.  And yes, audio from lav mics gets to the mixer via wireless.  Unavoidable, part of the landscape, not negotiable.  But audio then taking ANOTHER wireless hop to a camera, particularly when the soundie can't monitor what's being recorded there on the far lesser-quality audio systems of cameras vs modern audio recorders is not a way I want to get the only recording of a shot.   Then there is the matter of post wanting multitrack recordings these days--audio sources split out to the greatest degree possible, fully annotated.  Sorry, the master sound recording device stays with me--I'm not going back to the 1980's and handing it back to video.  And slating the shots becomes a better idea the more shots, crews and shoot days are involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2023 at 9:44 PM, Johnny Karlsson said:

Sure, but just because it says it records 24/48, that’s no guarantee of “quality”. Depends on what camera we’re talking about. Meaning a noisy camera input recorded at whatever file format will still be noisy. Also, the camera is a device that I have no control over. The operator may change some settings, or accidentally bump the level control(s), unplug a cable etc. And even if they are “monitoring”, they are probably not focusing on sound, or even want to, since they are busy doing their job making sure the picture is good.

 

You must work with a lot of bad cams or bad ops or both, because most of those things don’t happen in the real world with professionals.

 

My .02, 8-9/10, the shoots I’m on where a slate is used, it’s all for show.  And everyone knows it.  But they are willing to pay the $50-$75, so the audio guys are more than happy to use their slates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always bring a slate- i encourage slates, but do not push it if production does not want it...  However- most times it is on and jammed-- and 

sometimes things just come up..   added camera, problem with jam , confusion with frame rates...etc..  

 

But one of the reasons i use a slate is to indicate to  the editor that there are higher quality files avail that he or she can use to sync and not have to use the 

on camera tracks..  I have rarely heard of an editor complaining about having slates.....

 

And just having the clap-- can save the day in post,....

 

 

j

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phillip, "Please do not hold up the quality of the audio those devices (Betacam SP cameras) recorded as being good audio?"

It was good enough for Evening News, Dateline, Nightline, 60 Minutes, and every other news and news magazine show.  I also watched those programs, and found no issues with sound quality.  And I had an expensive console television and external Klipsch speakers.

RunAndGun, I agree with you.  I've worked with everything from the most expensive to the least expensive digital video cameras, and 24/48 audio quality is fine.  As to "noisy" camera inputs, the best way to clean a jack is with a recently cleaned plug, and that's what I do.  Of course, DPs and camera operators can cause issues.  Once, I even had a (very tired) editor call to ask where the audio files were.  He had ingested the video files and "wiped" the camera cards, and then couldn't find the audio files!  The field producer had the backup files, but she was nowhere to be found.  So I sent him the files online.  Some of my colleagues here may not know, but—as an experienced editor I know—even without "scratch" audio or a slate, a good editor can sync video and audio tracks manually.



 

Philip, when you say "to verify that our TC jam is holding on their camera," you're referring to jam-syncing the camera from the sound recorder, and of course there are many known issues around that.  To my knowledge, every such system has flaws.  That's where the "drift" comes from.  Waveform sync eliminates those issues entirely.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Especially when plurar eyes was new, i heard

52 minutes ago, Bob K said:

 

Philip, when you say "to verify that our TC jam is holding on their camera," you're referring to jam-syncing the camera from the sound recorder, and of course there are many known issues around that.  To my knowledge, every such system has flaws.  That's where the "drift" comes from.  Waveform sync eliminates those issues entirely.

 


This is not where drift comes from, but that’s another topic all together, and fairly well covered on this forum already. 
 

especially when plural eyes was new i heard this and similar sentiments about waveform sync often.  If they were true i would not need any of my tc gear anymore, however the vast majority of shoots i do still rely on tc primarily and all other methods secondarily.  There are lots of things that can go wrong to make waveform sync fail (same with tc etc), and even if it’s only for 1 or 2 takes it’s an issue. This is exactly why we do as much redundancy as possible, and new tools just give us more options for redundancy, rather than a replacement. 
 

i would also argue that TC sync is actually faster than waveform sync. The NLE only needs to access a metadata stamp to line up the files and not process any media. On short takes waveform analysis is quick, but start syncing hour + long takes and tc will be considerably faster. 
 

None of that means you should or shouldn’t use any of the sync methods.  I personally don’t care what the production workflow is, I’m there to support their workflow to the best of my abilities. If that’s recording on camera, great. If that traditional dual system, great. 

To answer your original question, i vote A, useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I worked all of those network shows at one time or another, and have to say I was not impressed at their interest in or understanding of recorded audio beyond what an exposed clip-on lav mic gave them.  I'm talking about the highest-end feature news shows of the time.  I didn't argue, I figure they knew what they wanted and what worked for them (feeding audio to the cameras of that time), but my headphones listening to a return from the camera told me that the audio being laid down was not at all close in quality to what my Nagras, DATS and eventually file based machines could capture.  I get it, they were in the content business, and good-enough was just that.  But if you heard that Beta etc audio in a theatre at theatrical levels you would not be happy.   I DID hear that sort of audio in theatres, many times, while working on some indie movies that were shot with those camcorders.  A WHOLE lot of NR etc in post...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luckily, no one ever recorded any audio from the mini earphone jack of a Betacam SP camera.  If you think that represents the camera's recorded audio quality you are sadly mistaken.
 

Do Nagra and DAT recorders have far better playback amps?  Of course.  But those recorders are bricks.  I've carried them.  Sony was wise to make their cameras without that unnecessary bulk and weight.
 

Indie movies?  Please.  Typically, the movie makers are rookies with little knowledge or appreciation of sound and audio.  It's an afterthought.  And they don't use broadcast-quality video cameras.
 

And theaters?  Now you're confusing recording with playback again.  You can't judge recorded audio quality by the sound of some PA system in a "theater," which often means a college auditorium with poor acoustics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bob K said:

And theaters?  Now you're confusing recording with playback again.  You can't judge recorded audio quality by the sound of some PA system in a "theater," which often means a college auditorium with poor acoustics.

 

I think you missed his point.  I can't tell if it was on purpose or for some other reason.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To stay OT:

 

Beta SP had a tape speed of 4 inch per second (and that Dolby C already mentioned) which was absolutely satisfying for that analogue TV broadcast of those days. 

 

Common practice was editing from Beta to Beta tape, and after that audio dubbing from Beta to Beta (eventually dubbing to a TC locked DAW in between). Sound was normally right ok, really. But it depended a lot on the condition of the machines and recordists' work on location (esp. gain staging).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if you're aware of how much of a belligerent tone you keep having. It's not helping you. I don't think you're a mean or belligerent person, just seems you are taking idle comments personally and then attempting to respond in a neutral way. Philip was using a phrase, not projecting your personal reaction. Then he was using a real life example as evidence, which somehow you took personally.  "Oh please" is condescending.
 

You have entered a community of sound people. That means many of us know each other and our posts don't just disappear. Many discussions take place over the years with the same people.  Please be aware of this and be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I did a great deal of recording to Beta, SP, 3/4", 1" etc DECKs, as opposed to camcorders, and with those I took the balanced line level outs as a return to my mixer, so I had a very good idea of how the tracks would sound.  No, the HP amps in the camcorders weren't great, but I didn't notice a substantial diff between what I heard on return from those and what I heard in edit rooms.  Yes, Nagras and pro DATS and pro file recorders had better headphone amps...obviously?   I did and still do a lot of audio post, so I hear production tracks in a studio environment all the time.  I still get archival audio from those analog video formats and can tell you that they require a great deal of work to make sit in a track with more modern recordings.  The "PA system" in a real movie theatre is a highly calibrated setup checked by Dolby (if the owners of the theatre are honest), and are made on purpose to be as consistent as the owners can afford.   A decent theatre B chain highly magnifies flaws that a TV set sound system might conceal, if only because the audio will be played at a much increased volume level vs how people listen to TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RunAndGun, thanks for the frank opinion "all for show, and everyone knows it."
 

Wandering Ear says "TC sync is actually faster than waveform sync." But, waveform sync takes just one second.  As to the claim that "lots of things...can go wrong to make waveform sync fail," I don't hear that from any NLE editors.  And PluralEyes has been supplanted by NLE native software.
 

To those who advise TC slates are useful to mitigate confused situations, I've experienced some confused situations but none that would have been helped by a TC slate.  Still, I appreciate the comments because I'm aware there are situations and conditions I have not experienced.
 

johngooch brings up the issue of "confusion with frame rates."  Yes, if different cameras run different frame rates that would present problems in post.  But, I think the clap of the slate, smart or dumb, would be the way to fix them.  I've carried a standard dry-erase dumb slate for years.  It usually stays in the vehicle with the sound blankets, etc. but it's there if requested.
 

I appreciate Movies by Matt's post.  I think he sums it all up nicely.
 

To those who claim that current audio recorders record better audio than current video cameras, I think if we could make a blind "taste test," where the same sound—except perhaps the sound of a symphony orchestra—picked up by the same mic, was sent to three different recorders and three different cameras, and those six recordings were then sent to a headphone amp (or speakers), no one would be able to distinguish which recordings were made by which devices.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Bob K said:

RunAndGun, thanks for the frank opinion "all for show, and everyone knows it."
 

Wandering Ear says "TC sync is actually faster than waveform sync." But, waveform sync takes just one second.  As to the claim that "lots of things...can go wrong to make waveform sync fail," I don't hear that from any NLE editors.  And PluralEyes has been supplanted by NLE native software.
 

To those who advise TC slates are useful to mitigate confused situations, I've experienced some confused situations but none that would have been helped by a TC slate.  Still, I appreciate the comments because I'm aware there are situations and conditions I have not experienced.
 

johngooch brings up the issue of "confusion with frame rates."  Yes, if different cameras run different frame rates that would present problems in post.  But, I think the clap of the slate, smart or dumb, would be the way to fix them.  I've carried a standard dry-erase dumb slate for years.  It usually stays in the vehicle with the sound blankets, etc. but it's there if requested.
 

I appreciate Movies by Matt's post.  I think he sums it all up nicely.
 

To those who claim that current audio recorders record better audio than current video cameras, I think if we could make a blind "taste test," where the same sound—except perhaps the sound of a symphony orchestra—picked up by the same mic, was sent to three different recorders and three different cameras, and those six recordings were then sent to a headphone amp (or speakers), no one would be able to distinguish which recordings were made by which devices.
 


compare the time it takes to waveform sync a 1 hour long take vs using tc.  You can batch process dozens or hundreds of hour long takes with tc in a fraction of a second, where waveform sync will take a significant amount of time. Doesn’t matter if you are using plurareyes or the built in abilities of premiere or any other nle. 
The real point is the existence of 1 tool doesn’t make all other tools obsolete. 
 

You may not hear from editors about the things that can go wrong, but that doesn’t mean they don’t or can’t happen.   Just because you haven’t experienced it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Bob K said:

 

To those who claim that current audio recorders record better audio than current video cameras, I think if we could make a blind "taste test," where the same sound—except perhaps the sound of a symphony orchestra—picked up by the same mic, was sent to three different recorders and three different cameras, and those six recordings were then sent to a headphone amp (or speakers), no one would be able to distinguish which recordings were made by which devices.
 

Well, again I think there are situations where skates are useful, and some where they’re obsolete. And that’s the way it all works. One part of the world uses one workflow, and another uses another workflow. I bet there are huge differences between producers even; they’re used to working one way and if that way has been proven successful over and over, they will choose that way even though the other way would be just as our even more successful. I don’t think there is one correct way. 
 

however, there are cameras that don’t have built in mics, and they can’t take audio signals. Like film cameras. And sometimes you might forget to turn the mic on if there are a million cameras. So waveform syncing is not 100% always either. But then again, no workflow is.

 

And sure, we could record everything onto cameras. But they’re not built for that, can’t really carry metadata unless the DIT is up for naming tracks and the likes . It’s not all just sound.. even if it sounds great regardless of the media, the handling and monitoring is so important in a multi camera operation, and the responsibility for sound…anyway. 

 

It seems you have one way of working and you seem to not drift away from your way, but I could be wrong, I don’t know you. But there are millions of different workflows and niches, and some want slates. Even if they’re for show.

 

 That said, I don’t think new slate, like the recently announced tentacle timebar , feels very innovative or useful. But again, it doesn’t fit MY workflow perhaps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the answer is the question. Both for show and useful, it depends of region - workflow etc. I have seen timecode to be fail, I have seen "end slate" and then there is no slate nor timecode; but camera is rolling to take the slate while sound no. Anyway, slate (digital and no digital) is necessary IMHO. It is also a good reminder for necessary dept. (cough!) there we are close to end of the shooting day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify my underlying point, I think all systems have failure points.  Waveform sync, TC, etc.  They can all go wrong, which is exactly why the industry has come to rely not on only one tool or method, but on redundancy.   A TC slate is one piece of the redundant puzzle.  Redundancy is a feature, not a burden.

 

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...