Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Mic vs. Line Audio

I would love a 2 battery module with 2 line level mini XLR inputs, another EVF/LCD port and another SDI out. I think that would be great. Small and compact. The thought of adding all of those huge modules to the camera is not appealing.
 
Colin Sheldon said:
The only real issue for me is the second EVF/LCD port. The audio and SDI can be solved pretty inexpensively by 3rd party accessories - http://finnerknowsbest.com/store#ecwid:category=1859774&mode=product&product=7994402
Click to expand...

While the A box is cool it does not solve the problem we are discussing on this thread. I do not believe a third party solution will come out to solve this problem as creating a line level input would require direct communication with the brain. I would like to see an audio only module maybe. I think it could be light and if they used the mini XLR's it could be really compact.

Thank you everyone for your solutions and input, I usually never think about audio so I have learned some useful information on the differences between Mic and Line Level from this discussion.

Stephen Wheeler
Daufenbach Camera
Specializing in RED, Digital Cinema, & 3D
www.daufenbachcamera.com

 
Jake Bastian said:
David,
Does the tape out on the mix pre give you two separate audio tracks on the h4n, or does it mix your boom & lav together?
Click to expand...


Hey Jake,

It spilts the tracks. So the split track feed can go to the EPIC and the backup as well.

David
 
Stuart English said:
plus soft audio limiters
Click to expand...

Is the limiter going to be improved at all? Obviously anyone working with serious audio is going to have outboard gear but I was interested from the standpoint of run-n-gun/doco work, the operation of the limiter is not great (eg gain reduction too aggressive, release time too slow) one of the many things on the long list of code/feature improvements for the Epic/Scarlet I guess.
 
James Brundige said:
I think the PRO/IO is a great concept to keep the camera small and light for MOS or double system shooting. However, if you are making a really PRO input module, why does it not include potentiometers (knobs) and meters like any pro camera? On a pro shoot, sound dept needs to make adjustments without bothering the shooter, and needs to see sound levels on the camera side at a glance.
Click to expand...

Difference in operational and design philosophy James, sound department should be using a mixer, you can't both be operating the camera body. So your operational level adjust should be at the mixer, we do have on-board meters.
 
Stuart English said:
Difference in operational and design philosophy James, sound department should be using a mixer, you can't both be operating the camera body. So your operational level adjust should be at the mixer, we do have on-board meters.
Click to expand...

What about for ENG work? Interviews? Documentary? Sometimes you don't have a sound department, sometimes you just plug a mic into the camera and being able to do micro adjustments without going through camera menus is extremely valuable. Rather then forcing people into Red's ideas about operation, why not make the camera/module more flexible and versatile? Having knobs wouldn't take anything away from those who have a mixer, but it would make the lives of those who don't a lot easier. Make them pop out so that when they're not in use they're flush with the module, or button knobs like on a HVX, etc. Sony, Panasonic and the rest might have been completely wrong about 1080p being good enough, in 2/3 inch chips, or on having virtually no upgrade path for their cameras, but were they really wrong about having volume control knobs?
 
Here's my take, for what it's worth.

RED has always been a cinema camera ..... cinema cameras (film) dont have audio. EPIC will record audio, just not perfect audio. (although i've never had a problem ...... knock on wood)

I always tell my clients about this up front and they ask "so it's like a film camera?" and I say "yes". Then we banter about scratch tracks and the like and in the end the sound guy hooks up to the camera and runs a secondary digital track on his cart.

This is not your standard video camera that guys use to shoot sports events. It's a Digital Cinema Camera.

While not the perfect situation for every shoot, it is what it is.
 
Dave

Goid point. It ain't 5k ENG, that is for sure. ENG cameras include things like iPhone 4 and the like. There has to be a division somewhere. Would you buy an f65 or an Alexa to shoot ENG? No. But some people think the Epic should somehow satisfy the need to replace a beta cam.

I gave up on that thinking. If I has to shoot eng I'd get an appropriate camera.

I shoot documentary on epic. I run double system and single system sometimes. But I never thought of EPIC as a news camera after the biggest features in 2010 picked it up as a movie camera.


David
 
David Battistella said:
Dave

Goid point. It ain't 5k ENG, that is for sure. ENG cameras include things like iPhone 4 and the like. There has to be a division somewhere. Would you buy an f65 or an Alexa to shoot ENG? No. But some people think the Epic should somehow satisfy the need to replace a beta cam.

I gave up on that thinking. If I has to shoot eng I'd get an appropriate camera.

I shoot documentary on epic. I run double system and single system sometimes. But I never thought of EPIC as a news camera after the biggest features in 2010 picked it up as a movie camera.


David
Click to expand...

The question is, why not? With film cameras there were very real and practical reasons not to record audio, with Epic/Scarlet it's a philosophical reason. To me that makes no sense - why not make a modular camera more flexible? Imagine having to dig through menus to get the camera to record if it doesn't detect a timecode slate because using a slate is the proper way of doing things.

Why not be able to put on a canon lens and be able to shoot regular and 300fps at sporting events? How is that a bad thing?

Why not start to create a wide range of content for the 4k displays that are on the horizon? I'm not talking actual news gathering, but more ENG style of shooting - small, mobile crews. Or low budget short films where everyone is wearing multiple hats or they sound guy is inexperienced. It's better to subtly adjust the volume on the camera then to wave your hand at the sound guy and point down.

Of course you can do documentary work on an Epic as is, my point is that it would be better if you could slowly ease down the volume on a channel if the discussion gets heated and volumes rise.

The only reason you seem to be able to give is "people shouldn't use their Epic or Scarlet cameras for that style of project because Peter Jackson is shooting the Hobbit with it." I would say one of the hallmarks of a great product is if it can be adaptable to other circumstances without compromising it's core functionality. People are using Kinects in ways Microsoft never imagined - and that makes it a stronger product, not a weaker one.
 
Look I've never thought of the any of the REDs as ENG cameras, but because of the size of the EPIC and Scarlet I can see why people would want it to be one.

The Pro/IO module will allow you to record Line level in the future, which isn't ideal, but is good enough for me. You can set audio levels in the camera setting. Knobs or an on board mixer is unnecessary. even in the ENG world you sound guy isn't live mixing audio from the camera body while you are shooting.

Stephen Wheeler
Daufenbach Camera
Specializing in RED, Digital Cinema, & 3D
www.daufenbachcamera.com
 
Colin Sheldon said:
The only reason you seem to be able to give is "people shouldn't use their Epic or Scarlet cameras for that style of project because Peter Jackson is shooting the Hobbit with it." I would say one of the hallmarks of a great product is if it can be adaptable to other circumstances without compromising it's core functionality. People are using Kinects in ways Microsoft never imagined - and that makes it a stronger product, not a weaker one.
Click to expand...


First off. I never made a Peter Jackson argument. He is in the 1% of large budget Epic film makers. He has massive budgets, massive crews, back ups support and a lift to ring to Red.

Most people buying Epic or scarlet, the customer base, are working in an economically vastly different stratosphere.

Personally I find the, "pj this, Cameron that and Fincher this" comments condescending toward the broad customer base.

Having said that, I can see why they did not put record input volume knobs on the brain. I think canon did that with their new camera which was a good idea.
But they don't need the overhead for 4k or 5k raw on their 1080p camera, which looks like a good solution for "catch all " production.

Most of the system resources probably go toward capturing a raw 5k image.

Putting physical pots on the brain probably was never in the design scheme. Doubt the io module will even have this.

David.
 
David Battistella said:
Line level signals are less sucepatble to noise.

Most professional mixers have an option to send line or mic level. I think the audio should be double recorded and send through a mixer before going into the EPIC. Mic level on the EPIC is fine for recording. But I have a backup on a zoom h4 as well.

David
Click to expand...

So... If the only quality issue is that line levels are less susceptible to noise, then it is really a non-issue. Good-quality cables for a short run from a mixer that delivers mic-level output will produce good-quality audio. Have I got that right?
 
James Brundige said:
Signal to noise ratio is better. Mic level input requires a low level signal through a cable connection, and using the Epic preamp.

For any filtering or limiting, it's better to use the preamp on a dedicated mixer.
Click to expand...


So if I understand you correctly, going through my Sound Devices Mix Pre-D with its excellent preamps and mic-level out capability represents no compromise to audio quality. Is that correct?
 
Mark Toia said:
A bit of old fashion testing... and your sweet... :)

I plan on shooting a film with all audio going directly through the cameras... no need to bring the circus. :)
Click to expand...

LOL! I love what I can do without the circus. :-}
I've done one of the best spots of my life with just me & my producer, a great gaffer, and one grip.
 
D Fuller said:
So if I understand you correctly, going through my Sound Devices Mix Pre-D with its excellent preamps and mic-level out capability represents no compromise to audio quality. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

Theoretically D, but honestly if you are working with a sound guy who is as worried about the quality of the audio signal as a camera guy is with the quality of your optics. Mic Level is no good. At least that has been my experience recently.
 
Stephen Wheeler said:
You can set audio levels in the camera setting. Knobs or an on board mixer is unnecessary. even in the ENG world you sound guy isn't live mixing audio from the camera body while you are shooting.
Click to expand...

Of course, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about projects in which there is no sound guy. Interview style settings where you plug a mic directly into the camera and start recording. Being able to quickly and smoothly adjust the audio levels is important.

That might not be your style of shooting, and it might not be a feature that you use but it would be one that would be used by a lot of other people. Do you think Panasonic, Sony, JVC, etc put audio controls on all of their cameras because it looks good? They had a little extra space? It's there because it gets used. If that's not you, cool. Just not sure why you want to spoil it for the rest of us.


David Battistella said:
First off. I never made a Peter Jackson argument. He is in the 1% of large budget Epic film makers. He has massive budgets, massive crews, back ups support and a lift to ring to Red.

Most people buying Epic or scarlet, the customer base, are working in an economically vastly different stratosphere.

Personally I find the, "pj this, Cameron that and Fincher this" comments condescending toward the broad customer base.
Click to expand...

It was this comment of yours I was referring to:

But I never thought of EPIC as a news camera after the biggest features in 2010 picked it up as a movie camera.
Click to expand...

Your implication is that because EPIC is being used by the biggest features, it shouldn't be used as a news camera. My question was why not? I don't plan on using it that way, but why should roadblocks be put in place to make sure that it doesn't get used that way?


Having said that, I can see why they did not put record input volume knobs on the brain. I think canon did that with their new camera which was a good idea.
But they don't need the overhead for 4k or 5k raw on their 1080p camera, which looks like a good solution for "catch all " production.

Most of the system resources probably go toward capturing a raw 5k image.

Putting physical pots on the brain probably was never in the design scheme. Doubt the io module will even have this.

David.
Click to expand...

There is a reason for not having pots on the brain - size. They wanted the camera to be as small as possible and they made decisions regarding the audio capabilities in order to achieve their goal.

For the Pro I/O, however, that argument doesn't really seem to apply. I can understand you not using it with your particular workflow, but why speak against it for those who would?

Also, the reason Canon has it is because almost every video camera above the $2,000 mark has them.... except Red.
 
Stephen Wheeler said:
Theoretically D, but honestly if you are working with a sound guy who is as worried about the quality of the audio signal as a camera guy is with the quality of your optics. Mic Level is no good. At least that has been my experience recently.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of statement that just drives me crazy. Why is it that "Mic level is no good"?

Mics work at mic level, and some of them produce quite nice sound. (And if they don't it's got little to do with mic level.)

My wireless receiver outputs mic level if I want, and it sounds like... well... a wireless. My $!,000+ boom mic works at mic level, and it sounds wonderfully good.

Now, I've got a little preamp/mixer made by one of the most respected companies in the industry, and it can give me mic level that sounds fine to my ears. It attaches nicely to the rails behind my Epic, connects with a pair of 18" balanced 1/8 TRS cables, and gives me pots, limiting, and large off-viewfinder meters if someone needs them. What is the problem with this path? Is there one? or is this just FUD? I am not being facetious here, I really want to know what risks I am courting.

BTW, If I am working with a sound guy who cares as much about the quality of the audio signal as I expect him to, he is recording to a separate, timecode-synced audio recorder. That way, I get separate channels for more than two mics, he has complete access to his controls, he gets to be in the right place to record the best sound (as long as it's out of the frame) and I get to move the camera as I please without what Mark Toia calls "the circus" tethered to me. I thought this discussion was about those times when you don't have that guy and you just want to record straight to the camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top