Rasmus Wedin Posted January 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 I hate the fact that producers look on us like we're grumpy old guys wanting only the finest gear and the most expensive mics. We need our shit to work, just as much as the cameras. I know what you mean. Somehow they don't seam to understand that the extra/better gear we ask for is to make THEIR show sound better. They understand that "the more expensive camera" is gonna take prettier pictures, but fail to understand that "the more expensive sound kit" is gonna give them better audio. How hard can it be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Sjostrom Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 Money talks. In a language that people think they understand. (null) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan chiles Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 I'm with Phil, I never plan to send more than 2 channels to a camera. I think using a video camera as a multitrack recorder is a ridiculous idea. I understand some of you may get these requests and need to keep clients happy. But I will always go for a lockit box/slate and they can have bwf's from me at the end of the day with matching TC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 There are a lot of television networks and production companies that don't think it is a ridiculous idea to record to camera, and they pay the bills. In some situations there is no time to for editors to ingest camera disks and double system sound from multiple crews, do an edit and turn it around for a live show the next morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Sjostrom Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 So why would they want 4 channels? If time is short and precious, how could they have the time to mix between 4 channels? That's a days work at least, and it is impossible for one mixer guy to mix 4 channels on a camera where you can only monitor 2 at once... And boom it. (null) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Usually they would take the mix, and pull out the Isos if they really needed. I would prefer double system, though I find that it is not the reality of reality television. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Sjostrom Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 No, double system is not an option. Just as much as single system multitrack for one man is not an option. :/ hell even for two people it's not an option! Nomad will change it I'm sure. (null) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan chiles Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Of course I dont think its ridiculous to record sound on the camera for doc and reality shows which I do a lot of. I just think that if they want isos then they should accept that the shoot will be double system. Feeding camera 4 channels is a pain in the ass and if the show has a quick turnaround they will only ever look at CH 1 + 2. If they need isos for backup it will take a few minutes to sync up the bwfs.. Anyways, of course what the client wants the client gets, our job is to give them what they want so hats off to you guys who are doing the 4CH sound to camera! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 If they are demanding 4 channels to their camera(s), then do it but build the gear into the rate. If they aren't demanding 4 camera audio channels then 2+ a backup is easier for camera and sound, cheaper for production, and not that big a deal for post. Syncing, even w/o TC can be mostly automated. If you are doing a multiple character many-wired show, then trying to figure out what to iso into only two iso channels on the fly will kind of slow you down. This is why recorders like 788 were invented! phil p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Capulli Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 if we give them four channels on camera then what the hell are we MIXING? no way i'm giving them ISOs on the camera. Also I've been told that in order to actually pull CH 3, 4 from tape requires a special DECK that is not common. thoughts on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 If production are asking for 4 channels on camera, then one can only hope they have the ability to extract it from the camera disk or card when ingesting. If production insist on this method in their work flow and are willing to pay to achieve this, then I see no reason not to help them achieve their goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominiquegreffard Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Aes to the camera. De embedded aes from the camera. 4 channel send and return. So mark can you enlight us with your technical wizardry? With what mixer/camera did u do that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominiquegreffard Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 If production insist on this method in their work flow and are willing to pay to achieve this, then I see no reason not to help them achieve their goals. Exacly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Dominique, At present I am away from some of my equipment so it will not be until mid February that I will test for sure. Here is my plan. Zaxcom fusion, xd cam, miranda picolink de embedder. (embedder $100 off eBay yet to arrive) 4 channel aes to the camera Sdi output from xd cam (might have to be downconverted to sd depending on Miranda de embedder) 4 channel aes out of embedder into fusion Line up all with tone Set up meters and headphones to monitor camera. May need to trawl through xd manual to downconvert hd to sd on sdi output. Previous test Zaxcom fusion, Sony ex3, trickster 850 vision mixer. Basically only 2 channel analogue into ex3, de embed on tricaster, aes into fusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 If I can get all gear in the same place as I am I will let you know sooner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 " and turn it around for a live show the next morning. " well of course, if there is virtually no post-production...this is actually pretty common, but not for "movies".(narrative, storytelling) " no way i'm giving them ISOs on the camera. " don't take the gig, if you take the gig, give the client what they want. " what the hell are we MIXING? " I call it "tracking" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasmus Wedin Posted January 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 The reason production has been asking me for 4 channels on camera is mostly for them to be able to pull unexpected, unwanted noise out of the mix in post. Many shows I do are "no re-take"-shows and I have 2-3 lavs and a boom mixed to a stereotrack on camera. People are always gonna be talking over each other, coughing in their lavs when someone else is talking, rubbing their lavs and so on (you know the drill). Thats stuff thats basiclly impossible to mix on location, but easy to fix in post if everything is separated. Of caurse I would love to go double system instead, but production is really in the mind set of "we allways get the sound on camera, why should we add another time consuming step in post?" However, I know a few camera guys who work with the 7D + Zoom H4-combo, and there never seames to be a problem syncing their stuff up. Hmm.... I think I more or less have to give up the 552 as a reliable way to get 4 chans to camera. I'm really looking forward to hearing how Marks idea pans out. Haven't got the gear to test it myself, but if that works, it would be awesome. The only other way I see this working otherwise is to get a 4 chan recorder, like the nomad, and from there send 4 channels to camera digitally, while also recording those 4 channels on the nomad itself as a back up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.