Feaure audio going direct to camera

[PD1]

Hey all,

So I've opted to record this feature with the audio going direct to camera. I understand the on board audio is great! so quality should hopefully not be an issue.

I am however a bit anal and am looking at backup options. I do intend to backup all footage directly to hard drive when feasible, does it make sense to back up the audio in one process or would anyone advise to try to do it separately. If so what is the most cost effective way of doing this?

Also, I have heard of people having slight issues of audio slippage by a few frames etc. Is this an issue with the direct to camera recording or only when recorded separately?


Thanks much,

Omari aka PD1

 

[Cail Young]

Audio is interleaved with video in the one file, so you cannot back it up seperately unless you record the output from the camera.

On-camera audio is always in sync; at least every time we've used it.

 

[jimhare]

Cail is spot on.

However it is very easy to break the audio out into separate files using QuickTime Pro. Just export AIFF from the proxies.
Could probably even write an Apple Script to do it automatically.

I love recording audio directly to the camera, makes everything really simple. No sync issues ever. We record up to 90 minutes as a single take and hasn't slipped even 1 frame.

 

[PD1]

Tanks much guys. Our recordist will be using a Deva 2 system for backup. I am told that the format is slightly outdated, but it is top of the line (old school) and as a backup, should we need to refer to it, is a relatively easy process to convert the files.

Any thoughts?

I wouldn't expect any slippage from the direct to camera link, but just wanted to be sure, as they say "no question is a dumb question".

As the Red technology develops I can see why many older heads in the industry are opposed. Basically it allows you to capture cinema worthy imagery with synced audio in manor one would shoot ENG. Definite change in concept, but I like it!

 

[ericyoung]

You'll need an external mixer whatever - the camera has no physical level controls (it's menu driven) and no limiters!

 

[Abd Samad Hassan]

Hi guys,

Just to ask your opinion. Is it a good idea to do this:
1. From mic into Pro Tools M-Box and recorded into Pro Tools of my MacBook
2. From M-Box out to Red

So basically the camera becomes the main source and the laptop is the backup.

Any opinion?

Sam

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

We are editing our film using RED's 2K proxies (it was shot in 4K), and had great luck with the audio coming in from an external mixer (Sound Devices 788T). Since the 788T can take eight inputs, we sometimes had more audio than the camera could run in discretely, but we had in case we needed more.

It was a great system, but, of course, it's not like sending a microphone into my old HVX. THAT was easy.

Stephen

 

[Scott C.]

You are likely to encounter latency from the digi output that will create synch issues with your footage. A better signal path would be live to camera, then out to Mbox, if that is possible. A better method would be live to field mixer and simultaneous to camera and backup, be it ProTools, DVD or HDD recorder.

Scott

Hi guys,

Just to ask your opinion. Is it a good idea to do this:
1. From mic into Pro Tools M-Box and recorded into Pro Tools of my MacBook
2. From M-Box out to Red

So basically the camera becomes the main source and the laptop is the backup.

Any opinion?

Sam

 

[Michele Gavazzeni]

You are likely to encounter latency from the digi output that will create synch issues with your footage.

Yes but it should be a consistent latency... quite easy to correct in post BTW not very practical; your should be running around following the scene with the MB and the MBox in your hand?

At least you should have your sound coming into the MBox wireless ...

 

[Tom Visser]

You've gotten a lot of different responses to your question... just a quick show of hands, who here is actually part of the sound department? Your mixer is using a Zaxcom Deva. It is by no means antiquated, it is state of the art. True the audio recorded directly on the cam can never go out of sync, but don't fool yourself into thinking that the (potential) audio quality on board the RED is equal to what is (potentially) possible on the Deva. I use "potentially" in parenthesis above, because of course it all does come down to the expertise of the operators at the end of the day, so the most variance is going to be your human element.

If you are disciplined about timecode, the post process with the Deva will be cake. It is my recommendation that you feed the RED a wireless mix from the Deva for scratch audio and to help synch in post in the event of a timecode emergency.

You've just asked an audio question to a bunch of camera people and understandably, you've gotten responses that are in line with this communities comfort zone. Ask the same question in an audio forum, and I think that you would get answers that are more aligned with what I suggest. The Zaxcom can do a lot of cool things that can help you pull of some difficult technical feats, combining remotely synched independent recorders, IFB mixes, remote control of a boom op's equipment, etc...

We are talking about a FEATURE here, not a short or student film. It would be best to look at what is typical in such a level of production and sometimes it actually is best to go out and do what is tried and true rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Casey Green]

You've gotten a lot of different responses to your question... just a quick show of hands, who here is actually part of the sound department? Your mixer is using a Zaxcom Deva. It is by no means antiquated, it is state of the art. True the audio recorded directly on the cam can never go out of sync, but don't fool yourself into thinking that the (potential) audio quality on board the RED is equal to what is (potentially) possible on the Deva. I use "potentially" in parenthesis above, because of course it all does come down to the expertise of the operators at the end of the day, so the most variance is going to be your human element.

If you are disciplined about timecode, the post process with the Deva will be cake. It is my recommendation that you feed the RED a wireless mix from the Deva for scratch audio and to help synch in post in the event of a timecode emergency.

You've just asked an audio question to a bunch of camera people and understandably, you've gotten responses that are in line with this communities comfort zone. Ask the same question in an audio forum, and I think that you would get answers that are more aligned with what I suggest. The Zaxcom can do a lot of cool things that can help you pull of some difficult technical feats, combining remotely synched independent recorders, IFB mixes, remote control of a boom op's equipment, etc...

We are talking about a FEATURE here, not a short or student film. It would be best to look at what is typical in such a level of production and sometimes it actually is best to go out and do what is tried and true rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

post of the week.

 

[PD1]

Thank you much Tom!

 

[Mike Paul]

If you plan to shoot @ 23.976FPS, confirm that the Deva II has that rate available

 

[Scott C.]

You've gotten a lot of different responses to your question... just a quick show of hands, who here is actually part of the sound department?

Excellent advice Tom, but just to be clear a couple of us were addressing Mr. Hassan who didn't say he was working on a feature. My remarks weren't as concise as yours, but the bottom line was essentially the same.

For the record, I am camera department, as are (I assume) a large percentage of the folks here. Might I suggest a tone that is a little less condescending?

 

[Tom Visser]

Excellent advice Tom, but just to be clear a couple of us were addressing Mr. Hassan who didn't say he was working on a feature. My remarks weren't as concise as yours, but the bottom line was essentially the same.

For the record, I am camera department, as are (I assume) a large percentage of the folks here. Might I suggest a tone that is a little less condescending?

Hi Scott, I apologize if I came off condescending. I realize I am somewhat a black sheep here, being a sound mixer interested in the RED, as I seem to be working with others who use it, almost exclusively these days. I was expressing a level of candor that was perhaps innapopriate given the more professional background of this forum's membership. For that I am truly sorry. I was a bit excited to be able to contribute as an expert in a forum which I am otherwise a very junior novice and grateful to be able to glean so much valuable information from those more expert on all things RED and cinematography in general.

 

[Scott C.]

I'm a new arrival myself. I appreciate your contribution for both it's candor and obvious expertise. Thank you. Please don't allow my thin skin to slow you down.

All The Best,
Scott

 

[Chris Pickle]

Depending on budget, scope of project, etc.... on anything lower budget I would record directly into the camera.

- The recordist plugs into his gear .... which is often right beside the camera. Might as well plug into the camera.

- Syncing sound in post on a Red project is a nightmare. Been there!!

- Most location audio is a disaster anyway. So little of it is usable and will need to be replaced. Not because of the recordist, but because of off camera direction, noise, etc...

- bit depth is often a diminished return. Just because we can, doesn't mean we need to.

- unless you have massive budget you will regret not going into the camera.

just my thoughts

 

[Tom Visser]

- The recordist plugs into his gear .... which is often right beside the camera. Might as well plug into the camera.

Here you seem to indicate that there is really no difference between plugging straight into the camera versus using a sound mixer (human) and sound mixer (device) and as a matter of convenience, it is better to just go straight in. I take exception to this analysis. What it leaves out, are all the duties of a sound mixer that are critical to getting quality audio. Things such as... ensuring proper gain staging, pre fader / post fader levels, detecting phase anomalies from a lav and boom mic, for example, adjusting boom or boom op and other monitoring duties... something that the AC or whoever is listening to camera audio is going to be too busy to do. Most camera people I know would prefer to not even really listen to audio and just leave it up to sound dept.

- Syncing sound in post on a Red project is a nightmare. Been there!!

Yes it can be, but it can also be easy. In my opinion, those who have problems in post are either inexperienced, have not put proper attention into timecode or even basic cinema sound synch details, or continue to butt their heads against the same basic workflow issues without addressing them. Being inexperienced is not bad, everyone is at some point, and I'm not implying that you are. But if we assume that professional tools that are designed for professional results require some professional expertise and competence to operate - there should be some leniency allowed for the process. What makes synching sound on RED more difficult that any other film camera? In fact, RED has TC input / output, film cameras do not. RED operates at the same speed, no matter what the AC mains speed is. No longer do you have to deal with AC pilot tone resolvers and adjusting motors for both camera and audio reel to reel recorders. Not everyone can afford a timecode workflow. If you can, there are thousands of ways you can mess something up, but a very little bit of research and education on TC goes a long long ways and if everyone in the workflow understands their responsibilities, it really can't get much more automated and easy to work with. You going to make mistakes, sometimes big ones, the first couple of times you work with timecode. I know I did. Just make sure those mistakes are made on non-critical test runs and not real deal productions. For those that are on a budget and can't afford decent lights, let along $2k smart slates and $2k to $14k audio recorders with calibrated master clocks, just use proper discipline with a dry erase marker, old fashioned slate, an audio mixer with slate mic, tone generator, and the people willing to adhere to proper methodology. Your DIT can slate the scene with proper notations on the slate, your editor will see the scene and take information on his screen. The mixer can enable the slate mic while the scene info is being called out and now your editor can hear the scene information at the beginning of the audio file. Mixers such as the Sound Devices 302 can precede the slate mic with a test tone generator pulse. This pulse shows up as a nice square constant level spike on the audio file's WAV pattern display. It is unmistakeable and allows one to easily get the audio recorder's file and the camera's scratch track audio to line up... you just zoom in and make the squares line up. The actual slate's clap will be an even more distinct marker that can allow even more exact alignment, its just that the tone's signature will be more visible in the timeline. I'll mention this one last thing, because it is probably the root of many people's issues. In the US, When most of us talk about 24p, we are really talking about 23.976 and when talking about 30p, we really mean 29.97. I see a lot of indy filmmakers who know they want to shoot 24p, actually set their cameras to 24p rather than 23.976. The only people who should really use 24p are those that intend to do a filmout and even that is debatable, as the content will almost certainly be destined for DVD, Blu-Ray, or broadcast release too. When someone runs true 24p frame rates, as an audio recorder, we have to pull up our master clock's speed so instead of recording 48 KHz, our clocks actually have to run at 48.048 KHz. You also have to correctly set all drop frames / non drop settings on all cameras, recorders, and pull up / pull down in the post workflow when the editor ingests the content into a workstation. A lot of people choose the 24p / 30p setting, because it sounds simpler, but in reality, most people should really be choosing 23.976 / 29.97 just to keep things in synch with regular NTSC standards and timings.

- Most location audio is a disaster anyway. So little of it is usable and will need to be replaced. Not because of the recordist, but because of off camera direction, noise, etc...

I know that there are lots of major projects that ADR absolutely everything. I also know that there major projects, even feature films, that have ADRd only mistakes or in the more rare case, nothing at all. Sometimes they will take the audio mixer's 2-track mixdown and use that untouched. This is of course becoming more rare and the duties of the sound mixer are changing towards more ISO'd tracks and less actual mixing. If you want me to get useable audio next to a highway, there is probably something I can do to make that happen, although it is going to take time and specialized tools.

bit depth is often a diminished return. Just because we can, doesn't mean we need to.

I absolutely agree. One is simply not able to realize 24 bit resolution in even a studio environment. A typical audio system won't be able to take advantage of around 16 to 18 bits worth of audio fidelity. Really high end systems might get up to 20 bits. Most modern equipment is automatically 24 bit capable, so might as well take advantage of the off the shelf converters that use this word length, but at the end of the day it is the analog circuits in front of and behind the digital chips that really determine sound quality.

- unless you have massive budget you will regret not going into the camera.

If you mean by recording audio line level via a sound mixer, I concur, without the basics, you would be blowing your budget on external recorders, unless you hire a mixer who rocks one anyways. If you mean by plugging the mics directly into the camera, I would have reservations. If there is anyway that you can do it another way, I would highly suggest that you do so. It's not only because of the fact that the RED has substandard mic preamps, which I believe it does, but also the fact that recording audio should not be a set and forget activity, that someone should really be adjusting gain levels for each situation, if not continuously as necessary.

 

[Nick Gardner]

I'll echo the "hire a good sound guy" sentiment. I also argue for keeping sound far away from the camera. Most mixers I know always prefer to do double system. They have more control and get better results. As an operator, I really hate having cables plugged into the camera, and sound cables are an extra suck. That many more cables to wrangle on dolly shots, hand held, and steadicam you would have to be wireless, and no sound guy wants the primary audio to be wireless. Plus you now have a guy who is not in the camera dept. messing with the camera, which is not a good thing.

As an added bonus, the camera is not tied up as a recorder when the sound guy wants to go off and get wild lines, or ambiance, or VO.

To be fair, I came from a film background, and thats how we always did it, so we are used to it. If you are used to stabbing cables into a betacam, then it's a different story.

How come sound guys only count to two when testing? Because you lift on three.

Cheers,

Nick

 

[Scott C.]

I absolutely agree. One is simply not able to realize 24 bit resolution in even a studio environment. A typical audio system won't be able to take advantage of around 16 to 18 bits worth of audio fidelity. Really high end systems might get up to 20 bits. Most modern equipment is automatically 24 bit capable, so might as well take advantage of the off the shelf converters that use this word length, but at the end of the day it is the analog circuits in front of and behind the digital chips that really determine sound quality.

Why go higher than 24 bit? Two words: Post Processing. I'll even go so far as to say; the less experienced your sound crew, the higher your bit depth should be