Does anyone ever use Audio recorded in camera?

[Adrian Weinbrecht]

Curious.....

Does anyone ever use the Audio recorded in camera on the Epics/Scarlets?

Theres always talk of 'Scratch Audio' but if you've got a decent feed coming into the Camera, why not sometimes just use this?

 

[Bob Gundu]

Of course. Many people here do. Send it a good signal and all is good.

 

[Mark Phelan]

Absolutely. I've used it since day one with my original RED One, works great.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Depends on what kind of production you are on. For smaller budget projects with quick turnarounds, audio recorded in camera is usually fine if you have a proper gain stage from mic to camera.

High end commercials, feature films, and even some documentary projects double system sound is preferred to maximize audio quality. Typically editorial will work with a mixdown track provided by sound recordist and then during sound prep they can get back to the isos and give the sound mixers everything they need for a great mix.

There are some projects that fall in between. They could go back to originals but may choose not to if they are happy enough with what they got on camera. I've had a few sound recordists whisper in my ear that they wish they could send a crappy scratch track to the camera so that no one would use that and would use the real tracks instead. And perhaps a few of them did along the way.

 

[M.D. Biemann]

Bob is right... we use Sennheiser G2 or G3 lapels as well a Sennheiser MK66 as Shotgun. The cameras record sound just fine... All depending on if you monitor your levels ;-)

For features we do use external recording (with scratch in-camera recording...)

Hope that helps...

 

[Mark Toia]

We did comprehensive tests, just to see if using audio directly into the camera was as good or some where close to external recording.

Using the same mics for both options.

Played the camera recordings and external captured recordings on the day side by side in a cinema studio , The Audio engineer literally couldn't tell the difference.

Hence why we now record to camera everything. (VIA A Mixer of course)

At the end of the day, it all comes down to the MIC used, and the person that's feeding correct signals to the camera.

PS,
That said... we used a small cheap Sennheiser G2 lapel mic the other day, Amazing , booming, crisp results. ?.... go figure.

 

[Bob Gundu]

Just don't use any sort of gain on the camera. Feed your audio into a decent amp/mixer.

 

[Tim Bradley]

I always record sound to camera. For larger budget jobs we will use a dual sound record option, but we have never so far needed the second option in post.

 

[Mark Toia]

Just don't use any sort of gain on the camera. Feed your audio into a decent amp/mixer.

That a given

 

[Marc Wielage]

God, I hope not. The audio sections of pretty much all cameras out there -- Alexa, Canon, Red, Sony, whatever -- really suck. You're much, much better off recording on a decent external recorder, which will have infinitely better-quality preamps, far less distortion, and more dynamic range. Plus you can do far, far more than just 4 channels.

I'm always incredulous at encountering people who think nothing of spending $40,000 on a camera, another $50,000 on lenses and mounts, but won't even devote $5000 to audio. Pennywise and pound foolish.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

God, I hope not. The audio sections of pretty much all cameras out there -- Alexa, Canon, Red, Sony, whatever -- really suck. You're much, much better off recording on a decent external recorder, which will have infinitely better-quality preamps, far less distortion, and more dynamic range. Plus you can do far, far more than just 4 channels.

I'm always incredulous at encountering people who think nothing of spending $40,000 on a camera, another $50,000 on lenses and mounts, but won't even devote $5000 to audio. Pennywise and pound foolish.

I agree Marc but I do think there are certain projects where it's acceptable due to budget and time. I think running straight into the camera with no mixer in the chain is where it gets dangerous. At the very least on the very small projects that I do where there isn't a professional sound recordist on set, I am running mics through a mixer (currently a Sound Devices 302) and feeding that to both camera and a small recorder. The limiters alone in the 302 make it worth the effort.

 

[Mark Phelan]

I have to agree with Mark Toia. I also agree with Marc Wielage. I have found the audio to be stellar through the RED, but then I use a Sound Devices preamp of some flavor. Had a 442, an MM1 and now use the MixPre, all great devices that coupled with the Schoeps microphones I use, give a super result. However, there are times to go that approach and times to punt and get a good Audio man to handle things. For me that means more than one or two mics on an interview. Even then, sometimes we wind up using a dual setup for a host of reasons. Both avenues can work fine, within limits.

 

[Bobby Farokhzad]

I use one of the better Audio Technica shotguns and I record straight to my Epic, never had an issue and I am more than happy with the sound quality.

 

[Ryan Sauve]

I did some testing and noticed more noise going straight from g3 to Epic (or maybe that was my defunct Scarlet. In that case I'll have to test again) when compared to going to an H4n. For my corporate clients, scratch audio out of the H4n and into the Epic is more than adequate. Never received any complaints about sound.

 

[Robert Hart]

As the SI2K is not an Epic or a Scarlet, please ignore from this point on if you are a purist. - My personal preference is to record both to camera and to separate recorder if for no other reason than sooner or later, forgetting to connect audio to the camera. - The SI2K P+S Technik body provides for 48k 16 bit two channels and that's your lot. For dialogue and oral histories where the environment is entirely controllable, I have found in-camera audio via the mixer quite adequate and mostly indistinguishable from the separate audio recorder. I guess one analogy one can make is that sound via a camera versus via a proper audio recorder with a professional recordist is like skating on pure ice versus rollerblading on a glass-like surface. There is distinguishable subtlety the average mug will not pick up until the mixdown in post. In-camera audio adjustment on the SI2K P+S Technik camera is not accessible without disabling a write-protection in the operating system, so you are forced to use a mixer which is not a bad thing.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I agree Marc but I do think there are certain projects where it's acceptable due to budget and time. I think running straight into the camera with no mixer in the chain is where it gets dangerous. At the very least on the very small projects that I do where there isn't a professional sound recordist on set, I am running mics through a mixer (currently a Sound Devices 302) and feeding that to both camera and a small recorder. The limiters alone in the 302 make it worth the effort.

Totally agree. We've always run audio into Scarlets via a Sound Devices mixer of some kind, and every time it's worked out great. We've always had sound record separately, but as others have said...it's been hard to distinguish from what's recored "in-camera" to be honest.

 

[Bob Gundu]

My little Sound Devices 302 for me.

 

[Andrew Gentle]

I use the internal audio recording all the time and I'm perfectly happy with it. It was a great day when the enabled phantom power!

 

[Marc Wielage]

Totally agree. We've always run audio into Scarlets via a Sound Devices mixer of some kind, and every time it's worked out great. We've always had sound record separately, but as others have said...it's been hard to distinguish from what's recored "in-camera" to be honest.

It is unless you listen carefully and critically on a real mixing stage on real speakers.

This is kind of like saying, "well, the lenses don't really matter if you only look at it on a 20" or smaller monitor." It all boils down to the lowest common denominator, and also the perception of the people who are making the creative decisions. Trust me, the differences are there and are measurable.

I agree Marc but I do think there are certain projects where it's acceptable due to budget and time. I think running straight into the camera with no mixer in the chain is where it gets dangerous. At the very least on the very small projects that I do where there isn't a professional sound recordist on set, I am running mics through a mixer (currently a Sound Devices 302) and feeding that to both camera and a small recorder. The limiters alone in the 302 make it worth the effort.

The 302 is actually a very good little mixer, and that's certainly better than trying to record through the Red's own preamps.

But I still feel sad at this ongoing downward spiral of sound quality, where too many producers have unreasonable expectations in low budget situations. A decent sound mixer is going to add a minimal expense to the production, and it'll also free up the camera operator and DP from having to worry about any audio going to camera at all. As far as I'm concerned, the camera crew already has too much to worry about: exposure, lighting, composition, focus, camera movement, battery life, drive capacity... adding audio is one more thing they don't need. And I have yet to see a single person run a Red camera and wear headphones to make sure the sound is good.

Note that actual sound mixers constantly ride gain when actors are speaking, or even in an interview situation, to optimize the dialogue as much as possible. I have yet to see anybody doing that with sound recording solely on a camera, either.

 

[Nick Morrison]

It is unless you listen carefully and critically on a real mixing stage on real speakers.

This is kind of like saying, "well, the lenses don't really matter if you only look at it on a 20" or smaller monitor." It all boils down to the lowest common denominator, and also the perception of the people who are making the creative decisions. Trust me, the differences are there and are measurable.

The 302 is actually a very good little mixer, and that's certainly better than trying to record through the Red's own preamps.

But I still feel sad at this ongoing downward spiral of sound quality, where too many producers have unreasonable expectations in low budget situations. A decent sound mixer is going to add a minimal expense to the production, and it'll also free up the camera operator and DP from having to worry about any audio going to camera at all. As far as I'm concerned, the camera crew already has too much to worry about: exposure, lighting, composition, focus, camera movement, battery life, drive capacity... adding audio is one more thing they don't need. And I have yet to see a single person run a Red camera and wear headphones to make sure the sound is good.

Note that actual sound mixers constantly ride gain when actors are speaking, or even in an interview situation, to optimize the dialogue as much as possible. I have yet to see anybody doing that with sound recording solely on a camera, either.

Marc, I love all your posts, but I think you underestimate some of our budgets. Even with my clients being broadcast, you'd be shocked at how little they pay for quick "run and gun" shoots. When they're paying 5K for a crew to run out and shoot a bunch of interviews, come back, grade them, and deliver on a hard drive, it can be hard to stomach spending $650 to 1k on a top sound guy. And sometimes you'll get a panicked phone call asking to get "pickups", which they don't always want to pay for. Obviously, for bigger budget jobs, we always get a sound guy, but for smaller jobs I think it's important to have an "in-house" solution, just in case.

What's also insane these days is how content is being approved. All my clients watch every cut on their Imac on a 720p H264 quicktime. They couldn't tell the difference between a $50 lens and a $25,000 Master Prime if it slapped them in the face. Same for sound. Under those circumstances, they can't tell whether it's recorded in camera, or on perfect Wav files. Their "speakers" in their offices are terrible anyway. It sucks, but that's the way it is. Even the premium spots are approved/critiqued this way too. The days of clients coming into calibrated edit rooms are long gone. We don't even go to mixes anymore. They are all done unsupped, and we listen to them on laptops and call in and give feedback.

That said, for anything truly high end (ie cinema), I totally agree with you 2 million percent. Please don't get me wrong.

There's the right way, and then the best way under the worst circumstances. Sometimes you just do the best you can.