Epic audio: feature request - digital audio only

[ericyoung]

... Epic is a pro cinema camera, and there will always be a sound department
...

Except when there isn't. Let's not be demanding less choice. AES/digital audio as an option is great. As the ONLY option, no please no!

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

More about AES

LINK>>>

 

[tj williams]

What the f..... Cris...

What the f..... Cris...

NO Audio..... heeeheeheheeeeeee

Hoping the audio module has both standard digital and XLR full size standard analog inputs. Hoping it is really cheap so
Cris Bell will feel really bad about not buying it!

 

[Brian Ferguson]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but I would love to see the audio inputs on the camera digital aes/ebu only. Maybe 2 or at the most 3 inputs, for 4 or 6 channels. The reasoning is:

- sound guy can have a small A/D converter on their person, or use the digital output of their recorder
- sound guy can use expensive high end A/D converters
- the gain pot is operated by the sound guy (vital!)
- the synced audio in editorial will be at the maximum quality
- Epic is a pro cinema camera, and there will always be a sound department

This would allow everyone to agree that the digital audio stored in the red is master quality, rather than someone having the opinion that it's 'guide' quality only.

This gives so many advantages.
- No syncing for the assistant editor.
- The editorial timeline can then be exported to omf or aaf and given to the sound department directly.
- The audio file naming convention matches the video file naming convention exactly.

We have done something similar with hard disc recorders, and it works great. The only files that are not recorded on the camera and come from the sound department are wild lines / ambience, everything else is named and matched 100% to the video.

Thoughts?

Professional Audio Mixers really don't like making the camera the major audio recorder. They want to have direct view of the meters. I doubt any of the people who are not used to AES are going to want to buy additional A/D converters just to use the camera. Most of the Union guys don't want to send a reference to the camera NOW because they are afraid it will be chosen over their tracks of digital audio. Just relaying what I have been running into here in CA. This is like telling your professional audio guy what gear he is going to use, and how he is to use it. Plus it is insisting that you have that audio cable from the mixer all of the time which a lot of camera operators hate.

The more a camera infringes on the territory of the audio department the more it will be loathed by them. I am dealing with the guys that mix the really large shows and this idea would go over like a lead balloon. No way do they want to be told what the primary audio recorder will be.

 

[Nigel Stanford]

Most of the Union guys don't want to send a reference to the camera NOW because they are afraid it will be chosen over their tracks of digital audio.

No way do they want to be told what the primary audio recorder will be.

Well no offense to those guys, but that's crazy. Having the camera as the 'primary' recorder (they're both digital so which one is the primary?) doesn't take away any work or prestige from the sound recordist. If anything, it takes away work from the assistant editor, as the only audio to be brought in manually are wild lines and ambience etc.

Whether the editor is using something called file_0001.wav or using the audio from the R3d file is irrelevant - they would be identical. It's just that one of the methods involves no human effort, and sync would be perfect. The sound recordist is still the guy responsible for making a good recording. Who really cares if it's being recorded in 2 places?

Every sound guy I've worked with in NZ has been happy to run an AES cable to the camera. We always end up using the sound from the camera, the sound guy doesn't really know which files were used and I'd wonder why he would care anyway.

Regardless of all of this, offended audio guys who refuse to run an AES is no reason not to put a digital input on the camera is it?

 

[Nigel Stanford]

Except when there isn't. Let's not be demanding less choice. AES/digital audio as an option is great. As the ONLY option, no please no!

Great point... I guess I'm just trying to emphasize that analogue is a distant 2nd for some people

 

[Joel Kaye]

The more a camera infringes on the territory of the audio department the more it will be loathed by them.

Since when did RED start designing inferior cameras in order to protect someone's job (who's not even in the camera dept)?

No audio guy is going to choose my camera. In fact, I was on a shoot where the audio guy wasn't set up to get audio into my camera in addition to the raw tracks he was recording and the producer got on his case and then told me he'd never hire that sound guy again. That was in LA.

RED needs killer audio because RED makes killer cameras... being able to take a good mix in from your sound guy is a huge post time saver. I hope the last year has given RED all the lessons it needs in how important a fast post workflow is.

I'd say both digital and analog is the way to go.

 

[Brian Ferguson]

Well no offense to those guys, but that's crazy. Having the camera as the 'primary' recorder (they're both digital so which one is the primary?) doesn't take away any work or prestige from the sound recordist. If anything, it takes away work from the assistant editor, as the only audio to be brought in manually are wild lines and ambience etc....

Every sound guy I've worked with in NZ has been happy to run an AES cable to the camera. We always end up using the sound from the camera, the sound guy doesn't really know which files were used and I'd wonder why he would care anyway.

What camera currently takes AES?
Maybe a special RED module that takes AES as an optional piece of hardware? Like the rawport.

 

[Brian Ferguson]

Since when did RED start designing inferior cameras in order to protect someone's job (who's not even in the camera dept)?

No audio guy is going to choose my camera. In fact, I was on a shoot where the audio guy wasn't set up to get audio into my camera in addition to the raw tracks he was recording and the producer got on his case and then told me he'd never hire that sound guy again. That was in LA.

RED needs killer audio because RED makes killer cameras... being able to take a good mix in from your sound guy is a huge post time saver. I hope the last year has given RED all the lessons it needs in how important a fast post workflow is.

I'd say both digital and analog is the way to go.

I didn't say what was being designed because I am not in the development part of RED. I am just speaking from my experience, not as Red guy. I personally don't want to always have a sound umbilical going to my camera. I want my sound guy to use the gear he is used to rather than hoping he has a digital mixer to send AES to my camera. It probably is a great idea but it will be a hard sell in the real world.

 

[Nigel Stanford]

What camera currently takes AES?
Maybe a special RED module that takes AES as an optional piece of hardware? Like the rawport.

It's not a camera as such, it's an stwo recorder which is the recorder for our vipers. But the sound dept have always had an AES to send to it.

 

[Joel Kaye]

It probably is a great idea but it will be a hard sell in the real world.

You might want to let David Mullen know that:

"Most common scenario I've run across on feature sets is that the sound mixer sends audio to the camera so dailies will already have sound synced up, plus the sound person records primary sound for post to some sort of hard drive-based system and sometimes records a DAT (tape) back-up as well."

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24307

That's exactly the setup I've used and if I could get a multitrack mix via 1 cable I'd be really happy. RED's audio at 24bit is good enough now for dialog. The difference between what you get into RED and what you get into a nice deck isn't going to be much. It's the preamps on the mixer that matter and you'd be using the sound guy's mixer.

 

[hunterrichards]

Red camera audio= dont include it standard, make it a module. Its a waste of space on a camera to have audio inputs in my opinion. By having audio being an added module, only people who want audio can buy it.

 

[Brian Ferguson]

It's not a camera as such, it's an stwo recorder which is the recorder for our vipers. But the sound dept have always had an AES to send to it.

Oh ok so there is no camera that has a AES input but a camera server.

I love the interview of Tony Richmond on the Red web site. "with other cameras the D.P. has to watch in a tent, I hate the tent".

The feeling I get is the more digital cinema is like film and less like a re-education process of the whole crew, the more accepted it will be.

I see more examples on this site for RED to follow the downfalls of devices like S-twos and Vipers that negate the whole reason of REDCODE and a small hand-holdable camera without additional cables. The advantage of RED is they don't need a server and they get the depth of field of 35mm in a hand holdable package.

I was there at the DGA theater when Steven Soderbergh looked at the camera and said "that is what I have been waiting for a digital 35 mm camera that I can handhold, I am all in!" I am sure he did not mean and I want a bunch of cables to record video and audio. There is not a current camera that records AES.

The ability to have digital visuals and have it work in a film environment is huge!

Just my personal opinion not that of RED.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

Hey, Brian. . . how the heck many REDs do you think the Hollywood guys will buy, anyway? It was always my opinion, and hope, that it was the tens of thousands of indie guys like me that RED was actually designing its cameras for. If RED was just interested in the Panavision game, then a whole bunch of us really missed the boat.

Indies NEED great audio going directly into the camera. The best possible audio is a digital signal running off of the sound mixer's great gear. Geez, it would be as easy as pie to by-pass the RED's (inferior) preamps and audio A/D converters and just take a line in from an AES signal.

Stephen

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

Oh, and by the way, the Sony F900 Cinealta has an AES input. But it's probably not a professional camera.



Stephen

 

[Matt Uhry]

How would it be if Red built in AES to the standard I/O module, and had an additional optional module, or a longer version of the I/O that had full sized, analog inputs, A/D's preamps, and some mixing knobs everyone would be happy ? Basically give an option for no compromise sound on camera or have the tools to do decent compact on camera sound in an EFP context.

Few people are going to be happy with only analog built in, but no physical knobs, and that's it. Single plug AES input would be of minimal bother to film guys.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

Here, here, Matt. . . you go guy.



I suspect that the real issue here is that RED is a camera company founded by camera people and, like most DPs, isn't all that excited about the audio side of the equation. But if shooting our first feature taught us one thing it is this: It is vastly more difficult to get great audio than it is to get a great image.

Stephen

 

[Joel Kaye]

Here, here, Matt. . . you go guy.



I suspect that the real issue here is that RED is a camera company founded by camera people and, like most DPs, isn't all that excited about the audio side of the equation. But if shooting our first feature taught us one thing it is this: It is vastly more difficult to get great audio than it is to get a great image.

I've shot projects with dual sound and with line in and with microphones coming straight into RED via external phantom power. Posting the dual system sound was far more of a pain the butt for a few reasons and the dialogue I've done straight into RED sounded terrific and was always in perfect sync.

I'm officially a giant fan of getting sound in sync in camera with RED. We had many issues with lockit boxes and dual system where many clips were 1 to 3 frames out. But straight into camera was always perfect.

Very much looking forward to my upgraded audio RED which will be here tomorrow.

 

[Elizabeth Lowrey]

How would it be if Red built in AES to the standard I/O module, and had an additional optional module, or a longer version of the I/O that had full sized, analog inputs, A/D's preamps, and some mixing knobs everyone would be happy ? Basically give an option for no compromise sound on camera or have the tools to do decent compact on camera sound in an EFP context.

Few people are going to be happy with only analog built in, but no physical knobs, and that's it. Single plug AES input would be of minimal bother to film guys.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

This seems the most sensible solution all round. As a solo shooter (primarily) that would like the luxury of digital inputs for the rare occasions when I have external converters/audio working, I need both decent quality analog inputs (this time with handy input knobs and limiters!) and digital inputs. I have a MOTU Traveler that would be dynamite feeding AES inputs on a RED from its AES outputs.

The only caveat here is that this needs to cross platform to Scarlet as well since that's what I (and many indie types) will be buying.

 

[Brian Ferguson]

Hey, Brian. . . how the heck many REDs do you think the Hollywood guys will buy, anyway? It was always my opinion, and hope, that it was the tens of thousands of indie guys like me that RED was actually designing its cameras for. If RED was just interested in the Panavision game, then a whole bunch of us really missed the boat.

Indies NEED great audio going directly into the camera. The best possible audio is a digital signal running off of the sound mixer's great gear. Geez, it would be as easy as pie to by-pass the RED's (inferior) preamps and audio A/D converters and just take a line in from an AES signal.

Stephen

I have been working on very low budget short films lately see locker13.com and it has all been dual system. I mean this is a very low budget film we feed a wireless reference usually. I have yet to work with a sound mixer that had a digital mixer. I know a lot of guys are using Yamaha's digital board but it is not that prevalent. I just don't like having extra cables is all I am saying.

Yes well I answer a lot of audio questions at RED you are right most of our users are not in the mainstream. Most Red users are just getting up to speed on how to handle analog inputs.

Stephen I have seen your posts on other boards and you do like stirring the pot. I live in the L.A. area and I have to deal with all of the users pro and indie and newbie alike and I am just proposing a different point of view. I wasn't making anything personal but you seem to want to go that direction.
I started my career in Arizona and they don't make indie films there any differently than they do in Hollywood. AES is a possibility, the camera is modular I don't know that it is not on the table. I made that clear previously.

If you just feed a line level from an analog mixer you don't have deal with our "inferior pre-amps" and if you think our A/D conversion sucks then you should rely on your audio guy's digital tracks. How can you insult RED in one breath and expect anyone to take your input seriously?