Request for Great Built-in Audio

[kmikami]

I guess the problem here is that "great" audio is so subjective. It's hard to figure out where everyone is coming from, especially when names like Presonus are being thrown around.

The way I see it, Scarlet is simply not going to have great audio capabilities. I'm sure it will have perfectly fine, passable audio capabilities that are in line with the built-in audio on any other prosumer video camera. But "great" audio at that price range in that form factor is not very realistic. Two channels of great preamps cost about as much as Scarlet and are usually just as big if not bigger. There's really nothing for Red to innovate here either. I'm sure it will be a pretty standard IC opamp based design and the noise performance might not be so great crammed in there with all of the other electronics.

But as I said, it's all subjective. I'm sure it will be as good as anything Canon or Sony have ever come up with.

 

[Ethan Cooper]

I guess the problem here is that "great" audio is so subjective. It's hard to figure out where everyone is coming from, especially when names like Presonus are being thrown around.

The way I see it, Scarlet is simply not going to have great audio capabilities. I'm sure it will have perfectly fine, passable audio capabilities that are in line with the built-in audio on any other prosumer video camera. But "great" audio at that price range in that form factor is not very realistic. Two channels of great preamps cost about as much as Scarlet and are usually just as big if not bigger. There's really nothing for Red to innovate here either. I'm sure it will be a pretty standard IC opamp based design and the noise performance might not be so great crammed in there with all of the other electronics.

But as I said, it's all subjective. I'm sure it will be as good as anything Canon or Sony have ever come up with.

You just said what I've been struggling to. Thanks.
________
ARIZONA MEDICAL MARIJUANA

 

[Christoffer Glans]

If it has XLR input that can feed power to my mic exactly like on my DVX100 with it's 16bit 48Hkz I'm happy with that.
I did all my sound and foley work with that camera due to lack of soundstudio and it worked really well.

But to be able to power a mic from the camera is a must...
All else is more about what mic you own...

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

If it has XLR input that can feed power to my mic exactly like on my DVX100 with it's 16bit 48Hkz I'm happy with that.

Word.

 

[Stokestack]

It might be better to simply put a digital input and a decent stereo mic on the thing, and let modularity rule. Get one of the aforementioned digital recorders or stand-alone mic preamp and A/D converter and run it into the camera.

It's going to be hard enough to design an effective imaging UI for that little pistol-grip camera, let alone making audio adjustments concurrently accessible through high-quality physical pots and so forth. Look at the available surface area, folks. And you also want heavy, high-quality cables running into the side of the thing? Cables that will outweigh the camera by far? And have it all powered by whatever puny battery fits in the case with circuitry that can pump 100 MBps of image data, which can't be achieved today by the giant Red One?

Don't forget you also have to power a viewfinder.

 

[Ethan Cooper]

Careful, you're making too much sense.
________
Colorado Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

 

[stephenv2]

It might be better to simply put a digital input and a decent stereo mic on the thing, and let modularity rule. Get one of the aforementioned digital recorders or stand-alone mic preamp and A/D converter and run it into the camera.

It's going to be hard enough to design an effective imaging UI for that little pistol-grip camera, let alone making audio adjustments concurrently accessible through high-quality physical pots and so forth. Look at the available surface area, folks. And you also want heavy, high-quality cables running into the side of the thing? Cables that will outweigh the camera by far? And have it all powered by whatever puny battery fits in the case with circuitry that can pump 100 MBps of image data, which can't be achieved today by the giant Red One?

Don't forget you also have to power a viewfinder.

I completely disagree. First, I have hardly ever used the viewfinder on my DVX and wouldn't pay to get if fixed if it broke. Second, I won't buy Scarlet if I have to use double system sound all the time. That's a step back to my years fighting with Nagras on small shoots plus the extra post hassle of syncing takes.

I've did double system sound with a DAT on one 30 minute DV project years ago and it was nothing but a hassle. Now, if size/space are an option, a snap on integrated audio modular unit might be okay if it's completely integrated with display, metering on LCD etc. But this is just some engineering and interface ingeniuty. This is the age of iPhones etc.

It can be done and done well. I had small Super 8 cameras around Scarlet's size and weight with decent VU meters and pots...

 

[10s]

I'm sure this is too late because the die has been cast, but if Scarlet was more of a box like EPIC with a host of interface connections, then a series of modular boxes could be attached, one for transport controls, one for audio, one for media, one for power, etc...

By using a modular approach to design this would enable an easy plug & play approach to upgrades and retros. Other mfg.s could jump in and produce all sorts of extensions and turbo this & that. You might go for a different media system and I might want an enhanced power system, and someone else might want an enhanced audio system.

This mothership and her little modular children would keep all of us with our different needs happy. This would be my approach.

I hate to repeat myself, but this approach (above) will solve many many problems. I seem to be stuttering, stuttering.

 

[kmikami]

The more modular it is, the more expensive it is.

 

[10s]

The more modular it is, the more expensive it is.

Maybe.....maybe not. It would be cheaper in the long run. The idea is to make something that is reconfigurable that can grow into the future with new modules if the main mothership is well enough designed to host secondary modules. Why keep buying new cameras?

 

[Stokestack]

I completely disagree. First, I have hardly ever used the viewfinder on my DVX and wouldn't pay to get if fixed if it broke.

OK, I assume that you don't want to just wave the camera at your subject and hope for the best. When I say "viewfinder", I mean "viewing device of some kind", whether that be a screen or viewfinder. Since my point was about the size of the camera and the power requirements, I figured this would be obvious.

Second, I won't buy Scarlet if I have to use double system sound all the time. That's a step back to my years fighting with Nagras on small shoots plus the extra post hassle of syncing takes.

I don't want to deal with that either. That's why I suggested built-in stereo mics for convenient sound, and a digital input for high-quality setups. With a digital input, your sound would be in sync because it'd be recorded on the camera with the images.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I figured this would be obvious.

A viewfinder is a viewfinder, nothing else. It has a name for a reason.
The other thing is called a LCD display or just display. So using the name "viewfinder" for "anything" is not obvious at all.

With a digital input, your sound would be in sync because it'd be recorded on the camera with the images.

Doesn't matter if you call it digital input or not, an XLR input is still recording digitally if the media is digital. Also, XLR have the ability to power external devices, like a high quality microphone. This makes it modular in that you can either use it as a high quality mounted mic on the camera or you can use it externally with a soundoperator (which is how it's going to be when doing a feature/shortfilm).

If you have two XLR's it also enables you to use a lavalier mic which when working with long lenses and people far away helps recording their dialogue together with a microphone close to the camera for enviromental sound and the ability to (in post) mix them into an on location realworld reverb.
Everything in sync, removing all unnecessary work in post which should be spent on watching performances and editing.

Especially when you don't have much time, it's far better to spend more time on the actual editing then syncing in post.


A built in mic is not going to be used, which makes it unnecessary. Why make room for a built in mic when you can use that place on the camera for a high quality input like XLR's?


How many in here work with sound as much as cinematography? Together with editing, sound design and foley work?

 

[kmikami]

Also, XLR have the ability to power external devices, like a high quality microphone.

Again, an XLR connector does not supply any power. A 48v circuit inside the camera would be supplying the phantom power which would then be sent down an XLR, a TRS, LEMO connector, or any other connector you might choose. The XLR has nothing to do with it.

The fact that you keep saying this kind of calls into question everything else you say. :wink:

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I know it's not the cable itself, that's just stupid.
XLR is of choice because of it's quality when using microphones and because I have excellent experience with that type of connection.
I think I already said that I really don't care about the input, as long as it can feed power to a mic and give the quality needed with minimal disturbance.
I just used XLR as my choice of input when talking about it. XLR has the ability to power external devices doesn't mean that it's the only connection that has the ability.

Using a lavalier mic needs a reciever which can also be powered.

That your interpretation of my choice of XLR in my argument calls into question everything else I say is no offense a bit narrow minded.
Does that mean I don't know or have experience of working with sound? No
Does that mean the rest of my post is rendered unimportant? In my opinion no

 

[Stokestack]

If you have two XLR's it also enables you to use a lavalier mic which when working with long lenses and people far away helps recording their dialogue together with a microphone close to the camera

True enough, but... nobody has suggested otherwise.

Especially when you don't have much time, it's far better to spend more time on the actual editing then syncing in post.

I'm sure we all agree, but why would you have to sync in post if you had a digital input on the camera? Your sound would be in sync. It also means you would have your choice of A/D converters and phantom power units, with, yes, XLR connectors. It removes those devices from the potentially noisy electrical environment of the camera and lets you dedicate as much room as necessary to high-quality preamps, connectors, and so forth. I have a small A/D converter and mic power unit with a belt clip and a digital output. They run for hours on a 9V battery. I run my AKG mics into that and from there into whatever I want. I could alternatively use a pro-quality ($1000s) CF-card recorder to power the mics and do A/D, and run its digital output into the camera, getting sync sound AND redundancy.

A built in mic is not going to be used, which makes it unnecessary. Why make room for a built in mic when you can use that place on the camera for a high quality input like XLR's?

Maybe you're going to bring boom mics or lavaliers on your ski trip or discreet guerrilla documentary, but I don't think that will be the universal approach.

The point is that cramming a truly high-quality, low-noise analog section into a dinky camera seems pretty challenging if not impossible. For evidence, just look at the disappointing state of small, affordable stand-alone portable recorders. So one option would be to put just-good-enough mics and analog audio on the camera and leave the option open for high-quality outboard digitization. That's all this suggestion was about; it was not about limiting anybody's mic choices or creating a non-synced workflow.

 

[Max Link]

Doesn't matter if you call it digital input or not, an XLR input is still recording digitally if the media is digital.

Fair enough, the sound would be recorded digitally anyway. But the reasoning behind the original suggestion of using a digital in was a different one, I believe:
We're talking already digitized stereo sound here, not analogue sources like mics, line sources etc. You'd A/D convert using an external device and then record the digital stream from the converter on camera. And if you're still wondering where the bonus would be there: Digital connectors can, of course, be big and rugged, like XLRs for AES standard signals, but also, they can be small form factor (phono-sized jack for SPDIF, or TOSLINK ooptical in) without any loss in audio quality, whereas I'm sure you would agree that in terms of signal noise etc. a 1/8" stereo trs can never match two mono xlrs.
So there you have it: high quality audio input with minimum space requirements on the camera body. Of course, all the leveling etc. would have to be done in an external device, but again, that could be docked on to Scarlet.

 

[ericyoung]

I hope it has two channels of DVX100A quality audio and decent control pots at least - then I could use it to separately record and control the sound that my Red should have had, and shoot Behind The Scenes at the same time!