Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

DSMC3 Suggestion - Audio/Sound modules

F

Fahnon Bennett

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
246
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Location
Brooklyn!
So more and more lately I’ve been working with small crews or with just me and an assistant. I will always have a sound recordist as part of the crew if that’s in the budget, but more and more lately I’m working without one. Dual system sound is starting to feel like a burden most of the time and overkill for the simple jobs, but the preamps on even the best cinema cameras suck compared to even sub-$1k audio recorders from Sound Devices and Zoom (I love my MixPre6). With image quality becoming very good across the board, I’m looking at what would influence my buying decisions when DSMC3 drops. It will come down to things that will make my life easier when I’m working, which will make my work better ultimately. Things like dependable AF, built in ND, global shutter, stabilization etc etc. I’m about to upgrade to the MixPre6 II simply because the 32bit audio will mean I don’t have to ride levels and make my job a lot easier. I was looking at prices for it and thought “why do I need a separate box for this? I’m not a sound recordist where I need to be separate from camera.” I’m sure there are a lot of people like me, so I have a suggestion for DSMC3.

Either:

1 - Partner with Sound Devices or Zoom and create a V-Lock I/O expander sized module that performs the same functions as the existing I/O module (SDI;TC etc), but has 2x full size XLR, has great preamps and enables 32bit float recording. This would essentially be like making the MixPre3 II into a RED module.

2 - Partner with Sound Devices or Zoom to integrate the preamps and 32bit float recording of their standalone recorders into the DSMC3 brain itself. I’d imagine you’d have to pay a license fee to SD or Zoom in order to unlock the functionality to make the deal worth it for everyone.

I really think this would help differentiate RED further from the other offerings because these days I’m seeing people create amazing images from the mid-range cameras from all the manufacturers (FX9, UMP, C200/C300III etc). Something like this would just make life easier for a lot of people who work the way I do without a dedicated sound recordist.

Also would it be too difficult to partner with Tentacle Sync or the like to integrate one of those tiny TC boxes into the body? How about with Sennheiser to integrate wireless receivers into the body?

Thoughts?
 
As I see it there is so many reasons why its better to separate sound from camera completely.

- Microphone close to camera, no good.
- Cables between camera and microphone, no good.
- TC sync lock between camera microphone is usually a hassle.
- Lockit boxes is a hassle.
-Fan noise.

Make sure clock on camera and Sound equipment is somewhat in sync.
Use camera for picture and scratch track coming from the built in mic and possibly the smallest of headphone jack microphone.

Then when dumping your Camera mags. Put corresponding sound files in the same folders.

Later in post do a "sync with wave form". Takes no time and kind of always work.

If you learn how to work it that way, you get around a lot of the hassle caused by things that is no longer really needed / was invented back in the days when things was more difficult and post was a pair of scissors and tape.

To me this is the best onboard microphone I found so far. Small, low cost and quite good as far as scratch sound goes. Put it straight into the I/o module and record that together with the built in mics on camera.

https://www.dustinhome.se/product/5...MI_v_Cl6-l7AIVCrwYCh3tdQrXEAQYAiABEgJDZvD_BwE

It has saved us plenty of times when the externally recorded sound was faulty, which should not happen but yes, it happens.

Also a off camera sound recorder is more future proof. The Pro I/O module or similar that goes onto camera gets old rather quick. If you buy something that works on its own it will last way longer. And today the zooms or what ever are small enough so if you really want on board audio its quite easy to gaffer it on.
 
Björn Benckert said:
As I see it there is so many reasons why its better to separate sound from camera completely.

- Microphone close to camera, no good.
- Cables between camera and microphone, no good.
- TC sync lock between camera microphone is usually a hassle.
- Lockit boxes is a hassle.
-Fan noise.

Make sure clock on camera and Sound equipment is somewhat in sync.
Use camera for picture and scratch track coming from the built in mic and possibly the smallest of headphone jack microphone.

Then when dumping your Camera mags. Put corresponding sound files in the same folders.

Later in post do a "sync with wave form". Takes no time and kind of always work.

If you learn how to work it that way, you get around a lot of the hassle caused by things that is no longer really needed / was invented back in the days when things was more difficult and post was a pair of scissors and tape.

To me this is the best onboard microphone I found so far. Small, low cost and quite good as far as scratch sound goes. Put it straight into the I/o module and record that together with the built in mics on camera.

https://www.dustinhome.se/product/5...MI_v_Cl6-l7AIVCrwYCh3tdQrXEAQYAiABEgJDZvD_BwE

It has saved us plenty of times when the externally recorded sound was faulty, which should not happen but yes, it happens.

Also a off camera sound recorder is more future proof. The Pro I/O module or similar that goes onto camera gets old rather quick. If you buy something that works on its own it will last way longer. And today the zooms or what ever are small enough so if you really want on board audio its quite easy to gaffer it on.
Click to expand...

Hey there Björn thanks for taking time to write all this out but I’m afraid either I didn’t explain properly or you misunderstood what I was getting at. I wasn’t suggesting on-camera mics; I was suggesting basically building the capabilities of something like a MixPre3/6 into the body of the next generation of RED cameras. So instead of plugging xlr into my MixPre I’d plug it into the camera and not have to sync sound via waveform. Btw waveform syncing has always been hit or miss for me, so I always slate and whenever possible use timecode. (I’ve tried everything from Plural Eyes to Premiere to Resolve to FCPX, and they all seem to choke when there are enough clips)

There are plenty of workflows out there for sure, and I’ve tried all the ones you mentioned and none have worked as well for me as just plugging the mic into the camera (not on RED, but in things like a C200). The reason I don’t do that as standard is just getting the best quality I can.
 
Brian Timmons said:
I made a thread some time ago about this very issue.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...r-better-audio-recording-on-newer-RED-cameras

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA
Click to expand...

Yeah you and I are on the same page. As soon as I don’t have to have a separate box to do audio, I won’t bother most of the time and the rest of the time sound is someone else’s job. If RED were to partner with an existing company like SD, I’d pay them the cost of one of their recorders just to have the sound quality I’m after integrated into the body of the camera and with 32bit float I wouldn’t even need to care about the levels
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top