Jump to content

Certain reservations


Guest Mick

Recommended Posts

I just had a nice visit with Glen Sanders along with John Coffey and Robert from Coffey sound on the set here at Universal Studios. I was impressed with the digital wireless transmitter/recorders and with the IFB system which transmits jammable timecode to the flash cards for later download along with the audio. I'm not explaining this very well but the issue I have is not with the excellent equipment and ideas that Zaxcom have presented, but with the moral concerns about having a transmitter on an actor which is recording constantly whether or not we are rolling. I didn't have time to ask Glen certain questions with regard to these concerns, but I hope that there is facility for the mixer not only to negate the recording feature on the transmitters remotely, but to have some visual confirmation that this is the case. I can only imagine the potential for problems ranging from lack of personal trust to litigation if post production finds itself with 12 hours of both production and Personal dialogue from any given number of actors. Cell phone calls, private moments, (the mind boggles) etc etc. A National Enquirer nightmare in the making. We are given a certain trust by these people to keep the faders down (comteks set to post fader) during non production moments when they are still wired and I see this becoming a big issue once the availability of recording transmitters becomes known to them. The potential for misuse is very great here and I hope that fail safes are in place to compensate for the additional responsibility that will inevitably be placed on our shoulders once this new wireless equipment becomes widespread which I believe, given that we are losing wireless frequencies at an alarming rate, will occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Mick, I think your concerns are right on. RVD/MXR had many of the same concerns and posted them here when he 1st became aware of the new tech. from Zaxcom. I like the idea of the product, and knowing Glenn and Co. I will like the units themselves, but there is alot to be thought through here. The politics and legal issues are very real and I think we all have the brainpower to come up with a workable solution, (I'm counting on you guys), but it is going to take work. I would think downloading the units back to the Deva and only keeping the segments that had matching t.c. from the main deck (Deva), and dumping the rest might be a 1st step, (and maybe it is). The actors should be able to get their heads around the concept and be cool with it. But I should not continue this post until I check them out and I understand the operation completly. They could be a lifesaver, or create a shitload more work for us hardworkin sound people, only time will tell. Can't wait to check them out.

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One problem which may or may not evolve from extended use of this system is that at the end of the day, or at any time for that matter, the file dump to laptop and then to DVD would probably be done more expediently as a complete transfer as opposed to selected time code dependent takes. I don't know how long any of this will take but the erroro factor remains and if unnecessary information is inadvertantly passed on to post then the burden of responsibility is also partially shared with them. I dunno Crew, it's a mess waiting to happen, but as you say, hopefully greater minds than ours will come up with a resolution and we won't have to worry. I'm waiting until this stuff has been out for a year and the airwaves are sufficiently congested before I dive into Zaxcom, but I know it's going to happen. It's just a question of when.

A Merry Xmas to all.

Mick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Webb told me once that when wireless was brand new (and not nearly as reliable as it is now), that when they gave him a hard time, he would instead strap a Nagra SNS to the talents leg, plug a lavaliere into it, hit record, and off they go. Similar concept, I suppose, except the SNS would run out of tape quicker. The same issue prevails on either technique, of how do you maintain a proper gain structure if the talent is all over the map? I am speaking of those actors whose method involves whispering most of the scene, and then erupting into a full lung scream (Do I attract these actors, or is this fairly common?). It would worry me that the recording would be peaking away, and I would have no way to accurately tell what's going on in real time.

If this concept becomes the norm, then we might inform all the cast of the situation, and then have to go around with utility, and hit record before each take on each talent, and then rush in to hit stop at cut, or use a remote control of some kind...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Eric Lamontagne

Seems like Glen has thought about some of your concerns already and has created a remote control system.

http://www.theultimatewireless.com/ifb900.htm

"Features controlled include audio gain, transmitter frequency, high pass filter, and record/playback functions."

I doubt that you would be able to RIDE the gain, instead you would probably be able to make changes between takes to perfect your gain structure. Safer would still be better in this case as far as the amount of gain. Sure beats having to go to the talent to control the TX

Hopefully remote roll via incoming timecode could be used (AUTO RECORD with sound devices), if not a simple remote start/stop function would be great.

Looking forward to playing with it!

Eric Lamontagne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Eric Lamontagne

Not to hijack the origional intent of this thread.....but......I wonder with the IFB function of the TRX units, specifically the TRX990, if there will be some sort of push to talk function for the return audio boom to mixer. This would really make them "The Ultimate Wireless" and justify the package price!

Maybe this should be re-started in the equipment thread.....

Glen?

Eric Lamontagne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billy Sarokin used these units extensively on a film shot in Manhattan, and w/ some help from the assistant editor who was making up the dailies reels found a good workflow in terms of adding back in the parts of tracks that had dropped out in the master recording from the onboard TX SD cards.  I too have a real issue with the "constantly rolling" thing w/ these units, and would likely not ever use them until they figure out a way to remote roll and stop them.  It is true that in the early days of radio mics we used the Nagra SN ruse to get long walk and talks, but those were special situations planned in advance and everyone knew what was going on. 

Philip Perkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... but with the moral concerns about having a transmitter on an actor which is recording constantly whether or not we are rolling. I didn't have time to ask Glen certain questions with regard to these concerns, but I hope that there is facility for the mixer not only to negate the recording feature on the transmitters remotely, but to have some visual confirmation that this is the case. I can only imagine the potential for problems ranging from lack of personal trust to litigation if post production finds itself with 12 hours of both production and Personal dialogue from any given number of actors.

Some technical details may help to clarify this discussion (which I do believe is and important one) regarding the recording wireless transmitters. First of all, everyone keeps talking about the "12 hours of continuous recording" which will never be the case since the transmitter battery most probably will die after 3 or 4 hours. Secondly, the recording part of the wireless need not even be used --- other than tests, I have not used the recording capability of the units yet (the SD cards are not even in the units and battery life is slightly better if not recording). It is true that the units "start recording" the moment they arfe turned on by default and will continue to do so until the unit is turned off or the battery dies --- or, when you power the unit up you can STOP the recording and turn it on later when a need for recording is anticipated. So, in a way, the professional/moral/ethical problem can be considered much the same as we have had for many years: an actor wearing a wireless mic that is "continuously transmitting" and we as sound mixers can decide to breach our professional code of ethics and listen to and record stuff we shouldn't. It will be possible, using the remote, to just start and stop the recording on the SD card just as we know start and stop the main recorder. In practice, it is unlikely that we will do this and the transmitters will probably be left in record independent of the stopping and starting of the main recorder. This of course will create a recording on the SD card that may contain things that should not be heard or certainly not passed on to anyone else.

If the sound mixer is lazy and at the end of the day just turns in a bunch of SD cards to a post facility because there might be some thing useful on them, this could lead to lots of bad consequences (at the very least, the person in post not being too pleased with the sound mixer's adopting this new technology without giving it any real thought).

The liability of having this 12 hours of unmonitored recording (which will not really be the case anyway) can be mitigated by using smaller capacity SD cards --- I have 512 mb cards which yield only 3 hours of recording.

It all comes down to what I would call the trust factor --- that we will all behave professionally and ethically, and the new technology, although it does enable those who wish to behave unethically, is not the problem. It is sort of like that phrase "guns don't shoot people ... people shoot people" (although politically I support the efforts to make gun manufacturers responsible for much of the consequences of the use of guns, these consequences are far graver --- pun intended --- than the use of Zaxcom recording wireless).

More on this later.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is sort of like that phrase "guns don't shoot people ... people shoot people" (although politically I support the efforts to make gun manufacturers responsible for much of the consequences of the use of guns, these consequences are far graver.

More on this later.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler<<<<<<<<<<<<

Really? Then one can only hope that you have the same attitude towards the auto makers whose products cause the death of more people than firearms do.

Fortunately almost every court in the country has thrown out law suits against firearm makers for making a dangerous product.

Eric

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the fail safes are in place, and I'm not totally reassured just yet, then I'm confident that integrity will prevail and that our colleagues will excercise all necessary restraint and caution in dealing with this forthcoming technology. Battery life notwithstanding, I'm still concerned that even though a selective time code driven dump of data will often be the case, inevitably at the end of a long day a complete transfer of all the data on the flash card will seem preferable at which point we then rely on the integrity of people outside our circle of influence. I'm sure that solutions will be found and that all of our concerns will be addressed, but I'll wait a while until these units have been out there a while and we have some informational feedback from Billy S. and others who have first hand experience with them.

Some great info here though guys, Thanks.

Regards and Happy Hols,

MIck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to wonder, but actually, these transmitters provide a safeguard that current transmitters do not.  The Zaxcom remote control allows you to turn them on or off whenever you want to (along with other functions).  You don't even have to go closer than a couple hundred feet from the actor to do so from your cart.  You also enable the recording feature only for times when it may be necessary to get good tracks because wireless are taking hits or going out of range.  At those times, the mixer would be as sensitive to their job responsibility as always and will turn them off between takes by simple remote control.  The feature is only there for if you ever need it.  Typical production sound mixers would use the recording feature sparingly and responsibly as required to procure good audio tracks.  Most of the constant non-stop recording would be done on less actor driven shows like reality tv. 

In case you haven't heard, the FCC has and will continue to sell off the frequencies we use.  In the near future, there is a very good chance that your wireless will not work 50% or more of the time in large cities.  Then what?  This is the only answer offered to date.  If it means we kill the units between takes so that the shooting can continue, we will.  Actors will also turn them off themselves (as many do already).  Small price if this becomes the only future solution.

As mentioned, current wireless transmitters transmit scripted dialogue AND PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS CONTINUOUSLY until they are turned off at the actor, usually only after part or all of the scene is over.  There currently exists a FAR GREATER THREAT to current wireless transmissions from the possibility of un-authorized reception of wireless signals by papparazi or just anyone with a simple legal scanning device.  Although the prudent production mixer usually turns down the wireless reception at the panel between takes, it does not even stop the transmission signal going right over the public airwaves while the panel pots are closed.  Now that's a big danger!

Imagine the ramifications if a single celebrity gossip magazine or a rouge listener who covertly followed a location driven production and recorded everything possible?  They could easily record huge chunks of the movie's scenes and lots of juicy gossip to fill pages of magazines for months.  All it would take is one such diaster and....well, if or when it happens, you get the picture. 

It's really amazing this hasn't happened yet.  The energy on this subject actually should be centered on current wireless transmitters and less on recordings made by responsible audio professionals using proper safeguards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John has made alot of good points on this so I will keep my comments short. Post will only get the audio that you the sound mixer decide to give them. While continous recording is a mode of the TRX900 it is very quick and easy to seperate out the audio that post would need to fill in any blanks in the recordings made by the mutlitrack recorder.

Part of our patent pending feature set is all about the automatic seperation of the audio bits needed by post.

As John pointed out our system of encrypted audio transmission provides the most secure method of audio transmission. The 12 hours of recorded audio from the memory cards stays with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've generally found that the more experienced (and famous) the actor, more likely they are to turn off the TX themselves whether we want them to or not.  The experienced ones have all been burned by overheard wireless audio at one time or another so they don't hesitate to switch themselves off.  I have often had actors either unwire themselves between their scenes or come to me and ask me to take the TX off them during their breaks.  I know that everyone makes the effort to kill feeds from actors between takes, and that the mixer would retain (and erase) the "full recording" SD card in the Sarokin-style scenario--keeping only the audio that had dropouts.  But there is undeniably a possible "perceived issue" here, even if there isn't a real one.  If I put one of these TXs on an actor and planned to activate the recording part of the unit, I feel I would have to tell them that when we wired them.  When they find out that we are recording everything they say all the time, they may very well object, even if it doesn't make sense to.  How often do you argue with actors?  Whose side do you think the producer will take?    Look, this is a great idea.  Just please stop telling me that constant recording isn't going to be a problem for some people and give us a way to remote stop/start the recorder in the TX.  This can't be that hard for Zax, look at all the great stuff they've done.

Philip Perkins

Good to wonder, but actually, these transmitters provide a safeguard that current transmitters do not.  The Zaxcom remote control allows you to turn them on or off whenever you want to (along with other functions).  You don't even have to go closer than a couple hundred feet from the actor to do so from your cart.  You also enable the recording feature only for times when it may be necessary to get good tracks because wireless are taking hits or going out of range.  At those times, the mixer would be as sensitive to their job responsibility as always and will turn them off between takes by simple remote control.  The feature is only there for if you ever need it.  Typical production sound mixers would use the recording feature sparingly and responsibly as required to procure good audio tracks.  Most of the constant non-stop recording would be done on less actor driven shows like reality tv. 

In case you haven't heard, the FCC has and will continue to sell off the frequencies we use.  In the near future, there is a very good chance that your wireless will not work 50% or more of the time in large cities.  Then what?  This is the only answer offered to date.  If it means we kill the units between takes so that the shooting can continue, we will.  Actors will also turn them off themselves (as many do already).  Small price if this becomes the only future solution.

As mentioned, current wireless transmitters transmit scripted dialogue AND PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS CONTINUOUSLY until they are turned off at the actor, usually only after part or all of the scene is over.  There currently exists a FAR GREATER THREAT to current wireless transmissions from the possibility of un-authorized reception of wireless signals by papparazi or just anyone with a simple legal scanning device.  Although the prudent production mixer usually turns down the wireless reception at the panel between takes, it does not even stop the transmission signal going right over the public airwaves while the panel pots are closed.  Now that's a big danger!

Imagine the ramifications if a single celebrity gossip magazine or a rouge listener who covertly followed a location driven production and recorded everything possible?  They could easily record huge chunks of the movie's scenes and lots of juicy gossip to fill pages of magazines for months.  All it would take is one such diaster and....well, if or when it happens, you get the picture. 

It's really amazing this hasn't happened yet.  The energy on this subject actually should be centered on current wireless transmitters and less on recordings made by responsible audio professionals using proper safeguards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, this is a great idea.  Just please stop telling me that constant recording isn't going to be a problem for some people and give us a way to remote stop/start the recorder in the TX.  This can't be that hard for Zax, look at all the great stuff they've done.

Philip Perkins

The remote start/stop of the record enabled transmitters is already in place --- I have seen and used the remote. Billy Sarokin was an early adopter (and beta tester I suppose) and could not make use of the remote control features. That said, we will be able to start and stop these new devices that can record, just as we know start and stop our main recorders. I do not think we WILL work this way but we certainly will be able to. As John Coffey points out, we will only use the recording feature when it is necessary --- it should not be forgotten in these discussions that the new Zaxcom wireless are terrific wireless mic systems independent of this new (and understandably troubling) recording capability. I think that most actors have an implicit understanding that when they are "on a wire" there is potential for abuse --- this is not new. I spoke before of the "trust factor" in our work and the undeniable fact of access to potentially damaging conversations during work, and it is my sincere conclusion that the recording capability does not fundamentally change the overall landscape. As an example, Tom Cruise (you really can't find anyone more concerned about security in ALL aspects of his life) has a high degree of trust for me and for Don Coufal, and this is one of the reasons we have done so many movies with Tom. Whenever he is wearing a transmitter he is totally confident that private conversations will not be heard by anyone on the set, ansd that I will pot down anything that I hear that seems as if it is intended as a private conversation. This trust, however, only goes so far. Numerous times (and always when he leaves the set) Tom unplugs the microphone himself --- this insures that no one, not even some stealth operation with a scanner off set will hear anything they are not supposed to. Tom is also very good about plugging his mic back in, almost always prior to any rehearsal we may need when he comes back on the set.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as a transmitted signal, Mr. Coffey couldn't have brought up a... pointy-er ... uh, point.  Anyone with a scanner (holy sh*t, get a LIFE!) could easily intercept anything being transmited... As an actor, I think I'd feel much safer knowing the information was at least confined to the Sound dept. 

I think it's amazing -- why not use the technology to our advantage -- especially in light of what's going on with the FCC.  Besides, when did an actor ever say anything important unless it was scripted?  Sorry, just kidding.  Just KIDDING!  GOD!

My $.02:  Shoot, I'd buy one.  : )  with or without the remote-roll function.  Either that or Lectro 700's -- all you have to do is convince the line producer that he's thus avoiding a potential lawsuit and they should have no problem justifying the little bump in the budgey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with the zaxcom system, as it transmits digital data not audio like an analogue tx (lectro, audio ltd etc) would a scanner not pick up digital data - remember loading programs on your computer from tape? and you would need a zaxcom reviever to decode the transmission.

another thing that just popped into my head. is/could it be possible to slave the remote roll and cut function to your master recorder in the same way that you do with a slave recorder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil, I stayed off this thread (and all of ramps lately), but felt obliged to jump in here when no one mentioned my points and now again to answer you. 

Am I missing something when you said "stop telling me that constant recording isn't going to be a problem for some people and give us a way to remote stop/start the recorder in the TX.  This can't be that hard for Zax,"?

Did you miss my opening satement where I said "these transmitters provide a safeguard that current transmitters do not".... "The Zaxcom remote control allows you to turn them on or off whenever you want to (along with other functions).  You don't even have to go closer than a couple hundred feet from the actor to do so from your cart."?

From there I went on to comment on other statements made in this thread that I don't agree with in the context I wrote - where I wonder why the constant (if you should so choose not to turn it off) recording is any more dangerous that the current unencrptyed transmissions, live from the actor's unsuspecting mouths, going uncensored right over the public airways at all times.  Now that's really playing with fire!  What do you think actors would say if they knew that you had zero control over that?  Do you inform them that they are always transmitting on public airways unless they turn off their transmitter between every take?  God forbid, what would they say when nefarious people finally figure out how easy it is to use a scanner and recorded their scripted and candid moments for public consumption?  Then which evil would be preferred, us handling their audio or the bad guys?  Just because we've been ridiculously very lucky so far....it's a valid worry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with the zaxcom system, as it transmits digital data not audio like an analogue tx (lectro, audio ltd etc) would a scanner not pick up digital data - remember loading programs on your computer from tape? and you would need a zaxcom reviever to decode the transmission.

Not sure about the newer system, but when using the digital Stereo Camera link Zaxcom, I could pick up the signal just fine on my Icom Communications receiver. Frankly i was surprised. I thought, like you, it would pickup digital hash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure that this post means what it appears to say but for the record.

It is impossible to monitor a Zaxcom wireless with any receiver other than a Zaxcom wireless receiver as the signal is 100% digital. If the encryption function is enabled only a matching Zaxcom receiver with the same encryption key code can then decode the signal. There are 16 million codes available for system protection. The Zaxcom wireless system is the only broadcast wireless that has this feature.

Glenn

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...