Call for better audio recording on newer RED cameras.

[Michael Lindsay]

Separate audio is better for creative reasons..... both departments benefit from being free of each other.. I accept for prosaic work there are reason for single but it is fundentally and always will be a lesss creative approach!

 

[Mark Phelan]

Watched the Royal Wedding this morning and when they rode out in the carriage the one thing you saw was how many smartphones were being held to capture the event. Forget big brother recording your entire life, WE are big brother.

If RED ignores this elephant in the room issue, it is to their detriment. EVERYONE wants outstanding audio alongside the visual abilities. I cannot understand why Sound Devices has not made a dedicated module or even been incorporated inside the brain. I think most would even welcome a brain that is a smidge larger if it meant a strong sound board was, well, on board. At the very least, a module that is bomb-proof.

Sound is fifty percent of the movie. Make it so, number one.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Separate audio is better for creative reasons..... both departments benefit from being free of each other.. I accept for prosaic work there are reason for single but it is fundentally and always will be a lesss creative approach!

I see you feel the need to continue pushing dual system even after I pretty explicitly stated that isn't what the thread is about. (and I think I am justified in defining what the thread is about since it was my quote from another that inspired this new thread.)

"-Define Prosaic at Dictionary.com
Prosaic definition: commonplace or dull; matter-of-fact or unimaginative. "

To suggest that any project or shooting situation that requires or benefits from a more streamlined approach is "prosaic" seems a bit snobbish.

 

[Michael Lindsay]

I see you feel the need to continue pushing dual system even after I pretty explicitly stated that isn't what the thread is about. (and I think I am justified in defining what the thread is about since it was my quote from another that inspired this new thread

Fair enough... Will try create another thread to share how we are handling this ..

"-Define Prosaic at Dictionary.com
Prosaic definition: commonplace or dull; matter-of-fact or unimaginative. "

Since it is my useage I'd really rather prefer the Oxford Englsh dictornary definition... which is less agressive in this context ;-)

I have really tried to help/push in the past but have a differnet perspective today... (Note I have spoken to Red EU directly about this quite a few times and patiently posted my test results on this forum.. but I supect Red feel that this need is adequately catered for by Offhollywoods OMOD.)

I do agree that DMC2 audio is not good (hence my original post in this thread)!
It has ground isolation issues that are a big problem... and so few seem to get it!
It is somtimes not even useful for playback... when the soundguys pitch up without a way of powering his Hop and it needs to be powered from the camera battery all is usually lost!

I do also feel Red should consider a small module specifially for this.. but as a community I can see we are not exatly alignned on what that should be.. I personally feel they need for it to be low cost, small and only doing the bare minum... I am thinking about the scarlet W here...phantom powering, balanced in, that can be switched to line level if needed... I think it should be tiny and not use XLRs (but I realise that is perhaps not what many want)

To suggest that any project or shooting situation that requires or benefits from a more streamlined approach is "prosaic" seems a bit snobbish.

You may be right... but not as you think.

There is a fascinating conversation between Jean-Pierre Beauviala and Goddard where JP articulates his regret in his pivotal role in bringing sound and picture acquireing further together.. Here was a genius engineer that wanted to thrust tools into the hands of revolutionaries not big bloated studio style crews...! I understand his regret...and it is partly my love and suport of creative sound that encouraged me to assert (perhaps too emphatically...)

Separate audio is better for creative reasons..... both departments benefit from being free of each other.. I accept for prosaic work there are reason for single but it is fundentally and always will be a lesss creative approach!

I probably mean this...

Separate audio is often better for creative reasons..... both departments can benefit from being free of each other.. I accept for lots of work there are reason for a single system but the comon place assumption that they should stay together is problematic for me!...

Anyways good luck with this and your film sounds interesting!

 

[Nick Gardner]

If you don't have a sound guy, you probably shouldn't be doing the project. And while we are at it why doesbn't Red have built in lighting?

I can think of 100 different reasons to do double system sound, and zero reasons to record audio on camera.

 

[Reuben Evans]

If you don't have a sound guy, you probably shouldn't be doing the project. And while we are at it why doesbn't Red have built in lighting?

I can think of 100 different reasons to do double system sound, and zero reasons to record audio on camera.

Run and Gun documentary work is a very good reason for it. Sometimes you need to be as fast as possible, and the next shoot you can do a nice big setup. Some will say RED isn't a good tool for doc work, but that isn't the case. The resolution and DR makes it an exceptional tool for situations when you can't control the light.

 

[Frank Glencairn]

Some will say RED isn't a good tool for doc work, but that isn't the case. The resolution and DR makes it an exceptional tool for situations when you can't control the light.

Yeah - I shot some high glossy (and most of them award winning) documentaries on RED, never had any issues or problems. I think it's a myth.
80% of it is good planing months ahead - the rest is experience, skills and knowing your camera and shit.

Separate audio is better for creative reasons.....

Seriously?

How exactly do you get "creative" as a sound guy anyway, and how exactly does in camera recording change that?

If you don't have a sound guy, you probably shouldn't be doing the project. And while we are at it why doesbn't Red have built in lighting?

I can think of 100 different reasons to do double system sound, and zero reasons to record audio on camera.

What the hell are you guys talking about?

Nobody was talking about "not having a sound guy" - of course you have one.
Who would operate the boom and the field mixer otherwise?

What does this have to do with recording in camera?

 

[Nick Gardner]

Nobody was talking about "not having a sound guy" - of course you have one.
Who would operate the boom and the field mixer otherwise?

So if you have the guy, why on earth would you record sound on the camera? I seriously can't think of one single reason. It is easier, faster, and better to do double system sound. Particularly on docs. If you are double system, the sound guy can keep rolling during battery changes and reloads if you are truly in an uncontrollable setting. The sound guy can record wild sound without the camera rolling. Not running sound to camera makes it smaller and lighter, not to mention the spaghetti of cables.

Sound is it's own department, it shouldn't have anything to do with camera past a lock it box.

Nick

Edit
Although this is not helpful to the point of the thread, so I'll shut up. I just can't stand when some producer decides we need to run sound to the camera because we can.

 

[Frank Glencairn]

It is easier, faster, and better to do double system sound.

How ist that easier?
How is that faster?
How is that better?

There is nothing faster, easier and better, than having your audio tracks
married to your images where they belong ,out of the box in the first place (unless you don't give a shit, cause somebody else does the post production for you).

. If you are double system, the sound guy can keep rolling during battery changes and reloads if you are truly in an uncontrollable setting.

Are you shooting in a war zone? When you can't control your setting, you did something wrong (most of the time, it's planing), or you just need to get better, so you can take over control.
With all the documentaries under my belt, I never let anything happen, that I don't control.

And why on earth, should my sound guy rolling when I don't? Again, only when you lost control, instead of making the calls.

Not running sound to camera makes it smaller and lighter, not to mention the spaghetti of cables.

Yeah, that stupid cable is soooo heavy and big, a totally imposition.

Really? If a cable more or less is too much for you, maybe you have the wrong job - and yes, I know your IMBD

 

[Jon Dishler]

Even as a solo operator or with a small crew, much prefer separate sound. I used to have Sony F3 with XLR and did both sound into camera and on SD 633, the SD version always was better. Also TC is so powerful, especially with 2 camera shoots. Only need something tiny and light on camera, like Ultrasync, and once it has synced, does not even need to be communicating with Wave master, although it always is. There is Dugan automix on SD 633 and others, which allows for two or more talent to be mic'd, have a boom, and like magic it all sounds great. As mentioned can continue recording sound separate from camera when needed. Finally, sound files can be worked on independently in post with things like Izotope RX6. And there are apps that allow control of sound recording from TC and also controlling SD633 all from a phone or iPAD. And now there are even smaller/lighter boxes than 633. The main benefit I see is if there is a shotgun on camera directly recording, or a single LAV received by camera directly this could be a benefit, but one would still have to monitor the sound, and there is more chance of clipping, etc. unless there is sophisticated hardware in the camera or in a module. I do see the hassle factor of having to track multiple media however, and understand that others needs might vary.

 

[Nick Gardner]

How ist that easier?
How is that faster?
How is that better?

Sound guy walks into room. Presses record, points mike at what is making sound. Boom. Done. There is nothing faster or easier than that.

There is nothing faster, easier and better, than having your audio tracks
married to your images where they belong ,out of the box in the first place (unless you don't give a shit, cause somebody else does the post production for you).

I am a DP not an editor, although I used to be. Last time I checked, Syncing time code matched audio is automatic.

Are you shooting in a war zone? When you can't control your setting, you did something wrong (most of the time, it's planing), or you just need to get better, so you can take over control.
With all the documentaries under my belt, I never let anything happen, that I don't control.

My point exactly, so it should be no problem to have the sound guy be double system. But Lets say you are doing a sensitive interview, the person goes on and one for a while, and then gets to the best part of the story and the camera battery dies. Sound keeps rolling, you have the audio bite. Shit happens.

And why on earth, should my sound guy rolling when I don't? Again, only when you lost control, instead of making the calls.

Because it's their job to get wild sound and other stuff to be used for building tracks later.

Yeah, that stupid cable is soooo heavy and big, a totally imposition.

Really? If a cable more or less is too much for you, maybe you have the wrong job - and yes, I know your IMBD

Lets say you are on a slider. That fucking audiocable can be a major pain in the ass. Particularly if it is attached to a sound guy who is busy doing his job and not paying attention to what his cable is attached to. It's also a pain in the ass shooting handheld following any kind of action and being tethered to the sound monkey. Or on steadicam, or really in just about every situation, having a cable coming off of the camera is more of a pain in the ass than not having one.

I will freely admit that I came up in the world of film, and audio was always double system, but other than the slightest convenience that someone doesn't have to sync it, again, there is not one reason to do it.

That's just my 2 cents.

Nick

 

[Frank Glencairn]

Yeah well, to each his own Nick.

I guess we just have two very different approaches and workflows - but whatever floats you boat.

 

[PatrickFaith]

Watched the Royal Wedding this morning and when they rode out in the carriage the one thing you saw was how many smartphones were being held to capture the event. Forget big brother recording your entire life, WE are big brother.

If RED ignores this elephant in the room issue, it is to their detriment. EVERYONE wants outstanding audio alongside the visual abilities. I cannot understand why Sound Devices has not made a dedicated module or even been incorporated inside the brain. I think most would even welcome a brain that is a smidge larger if it meant a strong sound board was, well, on board. At the very least, a module that is bomb-proof.

Sound is fifty percent of the movie. Make it so, number one.

I'm pretty sure we are going to get the answer to this tonight! Anyway for integrated sound and image, I think Hydrogen will be the way to go.

Sound guy walks into room. Presses record, points mike at what is making sound. Boom. Done. There is nothing faster or easier than that.
...

I'm with Nick on this, I want RED to focus on high quality imaging and I think they have been doing a great job working with sound module providers(so to me most of these posts aren't that RED does a bad job at sound, it's that people don't want to buy the sound modules & systems). For integrated low cost image&sound I'm looking at hydrogen.

 

[Mark Phelan]

I'm pretty sure we are going to get the answer to this tonight! Anyway for integrated sound and image, I think Hydrogen will be the way to go.

I'm with Nick on this, I want RED to focus on high quality imaging and I think they have been doing a great job working with sound module providers(so to me most of these posts aren't that RED does a bad job at sound, it's that people don't want to buy the sound modules & systems). For integrated low cost image&sound I'm looking at hydrogen.

There is much to this line of thinking. Smaller, lighter and better. Hopefully.

Seeing the royal wedding also reminded me of a friend's wedding I filmed in 1983 WAY before Jim even thought of RED. The progress technology has made is simply astounding.

 

[Brian Timmons]

I appreciate the feedback in this thread from all involved but have to reiterate
that I created the thread to discuss long standing issues the latest camera models have for direct to camera audio field recording and making a platform for RED to know that it is a problem affecting use of the camera.

The thread opened with 2 quotes mentioning situations where people opted to use other camera platforms
for reasons related to audio issues they experienced with their REDs. This is not isolated as other users have made similar observations.
I think that indicates a problem that needs to be looked at.

This thread was never about debating "Single system vs Double system" approaches to audio recording.
That debate is not in the scope of this thread. If one wants to discuss "Single system vs Double System"
please create another thread. It's an interesting discussion in its own right but one that does nothing but take
away focus and energy away from the point of the thread.

I did invite people to mention ways around the current audio problems as they exist and there were some interesting approaches presented which is greatly appreciated.

Pretty much every modern professional camera can record Single or Double system well but ,as of late, RED
single system recording has become a stumbling block for its cameras.

Ultimately, this thread is to shine a focused light on the issue to help remedy it without the need of workarounds.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Remember, this doesn’t have to be an either/or situation. There have been many award winning films that have had the sound recorded directly to camera and there have been many that use double system. I see no reason why there shouldn’t be a high priority for onboard sound for RED cameras. If you are a double system project, it won’t be needed but if you are a production that benefits from onboard audio it would make life much easier. So focusing on what the current audio solutions RED offers, as well as 3rd parties and discussing ways it can be improved seems like a productive exercise.

 

[Steve DiMaggio]

I appreciate the feedback in this thread from all involved but have to reiterate
that I created the thread to discuss long standing issues the latest camera models have for direct to camera audio field recording and making a platform for RED to know that it is a problem affecting use of the camera.

The thread opened with 2 quotes mentioning situations where people opted to use other camera platforms
for reasons related to audio issues they experienced with their REDs. This is not isolated as other users have made similar observations.
I think that indicates a problem that needs to be looked at.

This thread was never about debating "Single system vs Double system" approaches to audio recording.
That debate is not in the scope of this thread. If one wants to discuss "Single system vs Double System"
please create another thread. It's an interesting discussion in its own right but one that does nothing but take
away focus and energy away from the point of the thread.

I did invite people to mention ways around the current audio problems as they exist and there were some interesting approaches presented which is greatly appreciated.

Pretty much every modern professional camera can record Single or Double system well but ,as of late, RED
single system recording has become a stumbling block for its cameras.

Ultimately, this thread is to shine a focused light on the issue to help remedy it without the need of workarounds.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

If we could get something as simple as limiters and 2 trs I would be into that! Our second unit was out tonight and the dj told my wife to "just tape a lavalier to the speaker because you really need stereo" lol. However last time I checked we only have one mouth and one mic would still be.....well mono! hahah. But for real, there are work around but 1/4 stereo would be sweet on vlock io size, but I don't think the form factor could work uleses usb and hdmi, which I would be ok with since SDI is still there

steve

 

[Michael Hastings]

Wow,

I'm kind of amazed at the intensity level of pushback from those that insist that double system is the only way to go and that there isn't any reason for Red to improve on board audio connections and capabiities - AND that if RED were to put more effort into audio it might detract from their ability to further develop their imaging - which is kind of absurd - decent audio just isn't that hard that it should throw off a high tech company like RED.


EVERY pro camcorder I ever owned besides my RED Epic-X, Dragon, Scarlet and Epic-w, had at least two XLR inputs (I go back a ways and owned a variety - Panasonic Recam, three eras of Sony Betacam, Panasonic D3 (first uncompressed digital), Ikegami EditCam (first Hard disk recording), and REDONE)

But I guess Sony, Panasonic, Ikegami, Blackmagic, etc. are all wrong in thinking dual XLR and non-glitchy on board audio might be useful. Most of them have at least dual XLRs and also seem to be trending toward direct access function buttons, audio level dials, etc. We aren't asking RED to abandon the modular approach - just make a reasonable size module without proprietary battery empty space that gives us dual XLR capability and firmware that doesn't have audio quality as an afterthought.

We all understand the advantages of dual system sound so please leave us alone about it. There are some situations where direct recording of audio fits the situation better - they may be lower level in terms of production quality vs. the higher end "cinema" type productions you guys are on .... BUT in fact some of them may be more important to the world and humanity at large than those higher end productions and could warrant some additional consideration by one of the premier camera companies.

 

[Giles Harvey]

The above quotes were taken from the "EVF differences" thread that started to veer into audio problems people are experiencing with RED cameras, particularly newer models.

This has become an increasing area of concern for users who depend on their REDs for audio field recording and is important enough to have its own thread. My agenda for creating this thread is simple. I would like to see RED make audio stronger (up to 4 distinct channels), bug free, and easier to obtain professional results across all configurations of their camera lines.
I've always appreciated RED's care for the user base and hope this is on their radar for future development.

Please discuss.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

+ 1 Tough they way things are at present

 

[joshua csehak]

If you don't have a sound guy, you probably shouldn't be doing the project.

I don't think it's very fair to tell people what kind of work they should or shouldn't be doing unless you want to cut them a check to not work. I think it might be fair, however, to say "If you don't have a sound guy, you probably shouldn't be shooting on Red."

I can think of 100 different reasons to do double system sound, and zero reasons to record audio on camera.

I shoot double system on 99% of my projects, and 99% of those the sound guy has a wireless hop on my camera, and I'm recording his signal. Why? Two reasons:
- Let's say it's a corporate interview and they want to review the last take. I wouldn't get hired again if they couldn't listen to the audio as they review.
- My sound guy always delivers the audio files at the end of the day, but I would bet that most of the time, the client listens to the on-camera mix, decides it sounds fine, and doesn't bother importing the audio files.

If that's not good enough for you, here are some more:

1. Client wants to shoot a single 10-minute sound bite to camera, and some MOS b-roll, and they don't have budget for a sound guy. Do I turn down the project? Hire a sound guy out of my cut? Or simply pop a boom on a c-stand and record to camera?
2. I'm shooting a camera test and I want to narrate what I'm doing and record it to camera. I don't want to have to buy a recorder and sync in post.
3. The sound guy's mixer dies. Or the sound guy dies.
4. I'm shooting on a boat where there isn't room for a production team of more than one person, and the client is happy with the sound of an on-camera shotgun plus a wireless lav.
5. I want to record a podcast and I don't feel like buying an audio recorder and I'd rather strip the audio out of an R3D file.
6. I'm shooting a private sex video and I don't want a sound guy watching my girlfriend and I boning.

I could go on but I think I made my point.

Basically we are stuck with the V-lock I/o module with no solid audio input or the Redvolt expander that has XLRs but are glommed onto the Redvolt module which is a big waste of size, weight, and cost if - like most Red owners - one uses V-mount or AB batteries. The V-lock I/O expander would be great if it just had at least one (preferably two) XLR or Mini-XLR connectors.

What's your problem with the Redvolt Expander? (Not being snarky, honestly asking.) Is it that it's too big? Or too expensive? Or are there actual audio problems? I have yet to upgrade, but I figured I'd get it when I did, b/c I really like having a Redvolt in there letting me hot-swap and I'm a little miffed they took it out of the handle.

I applaud Red's modular approach. No audio if you don't need it, a little audio (stereo mic in, no phantom) if you need that, and full-featured mic/line +phantom dual xlr if you need that. My criticism is that the i/o module should supply phantom power, so I can use an A-box like I'm used to, and that the Expander should have 4 xlr inputs, and the redvolt should be in the handle, so I don't have to have the Redvolt Expander to be able to hot-swap batteries.