Scarlet Internal mic?

[Michael Pyon]

Just got my scarlet today (Woo hoo!) but I'm not seeing any audio signals on either channel 1 or 2. The Scarlet does have an internal mic that records audio right? How do you activate it?

 

[Matt Johnston]

Just got my scarlet today (Woo hoo!) but I'm not seeing any audio signals on either channel 1 or 2. The Scarlet does have an internal mic that records audio right? How do you activate it?

Nope. It doesn't.

You need an appropriate powered external mic and cable.. No phantom currently.

 

[jimhare]

Congrats Michael!

Scarlet is a professional camera so no internal mic. Their may be a button mic you can use, though I haven't seen anyone find a compatible one as yet. Otherwise maybe get a Rode NT-2 with battery, and the Red cable. But really it's only for scratch audio since your subject is likely to be further than a foot away from the camera.

Wireless lapel is another good option, this is what I use mostly with the Epic/Scarlet, as well as a boom mic.

 

[Arnold F.]

Jim, if you're able to operate camera and a sound mixer and recorder, and properly boom all at the same time you're a better man than me! In any case, you're dead right about the very limited usefulness of a camera-mounted mic. It's able to record the audio from a "scene" exactly as well as a camera-mounted light illuminates the scene.

I would not say that it being a professional camera means it shouldn't have a mic. Some do, some don't. I agree that with this camera, mic or no, we're at the production level where there should be someone shooting the other half of the film. It's no longer DIY here and I have to laugh when I see rig photos with a shotgun mounted on it.

For those cameras that do have sound inputs, I've never seen any stranger than what's on the Scarlet. I would never record audio meant for anything but a scratch track in any Red camera.

Congrats Michael!

Scarlet is a professional camera so no internal mic. Their may be a button mic you can use, though I haven't seen anyone find a compatible one as yet. Otherwise maybe get a Rode NT-2 with battery, and the Red cable. But really it's only for scratch audio since your subject is likely to be further than a foot away from the camera.

Wireless lapel is another good option, this is what I use mostly with the Epic/Scarlet, as well as a boom mic.

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

EPIC/SCARLET audio isn't fully cooked yet, but my RED ONE audio boards rivaled my audio mixer's Sound Devices recorder. My hope is that the EPIC/SCARLET will eventually rival the RED ONE, even if it means purchasing the Pro I/O Module. My EPIC is definitely noisier than my RED ONEs, and I just received a SCARLET yesterday and haven't done any audio testing.

But to say that recording "anything but a scratch track in any RED camera" is a bad idea is just spreading FUD. These cameras are quite young. Give them time. Enhancements will be forthcoming....throughout the life of the camera....

 

[Stuart English]

Thank you Meryem. I completely agree with what you said, although you are maybe a little generous regarding RED ONE sound quality v's Sound Devices, the latter company make superb audio kit.

When we designed EPIC / Scarlet audio it was our intent to exceed RED ONE standards, so although it again uses 24-bit 48KHz sampling, there is more dynamic range before any clipping in EPIC / Scarlet that available on RED ONE because of improved design of the input limiter circuits etc, etc, etc ....

 

[Arnold F.]

24bit/48K audio is great, but nowadays it's a very low hurdle and even the cheapest recorders can do it in the same way that point and shoots can shoot "1080." There are a lot more factors and critical stages in the audio and, indeed, video signal path. I mean no offense to Stuart or the makers of my camera (nor could they possibly take offense since they make cameras, not audio recorders) but a mini input, even "balanced," is not a professional input, to use just one example. I'm not complaining; it doesn't need one. The Sound Mixer on my shoot will handle all of that. Nor can I imagine any use for a limiter in a camera at this level except for when you want something there for when you're shooting video of your mates on their skateboards and they scream "DUDE" too loudly (through the low end mic I put on top of the camera).

I worked on a reality show for two years where we sent audio wirelessly (I can do it but I'm not sure I can spell it to the HDX900. We knew the over-worked editors were using the audio we sent to camera and it was okay because it was just a reality show and the turnaround was short. We know the audio we also recorded to the two Sound Devices 788t's we used on the show was better, but we shot a lot and the editors had only so much time so syncing later just wasn't practical. Nor did we use the limiters on the cameras because the limiters on all Sound Devices mixers and recorders are incredible; nearly transparent.

I think I remember what FUD means and, if I do, I can say that I don't fear having a sound mixer take care of his/her half of the shoot, and I'm not uncertain about, nor do I doubt the sound gear he'll use to do it if it's from the likes of Sound Devices or Zaxcom. Like makeup or wardrobe or art or craft services, it's not my department.

As a former Production Mixer I know that I'll spread a LOT worse than FUD if I allow people to think my camera is capable of the audio necessary for professional applications, a state we're dangerously close to now. I will never, ever let a producer think it can. If Sound Devices made a sound recorder that had a little camera in it that shot "1080" I would not let someone think it was good enough to shoot my half of the project with (although if any audio company could make a good camera it would certainly be Sound Devices).

Like many others, I will indeed put a mic on top of my camera. It's usefulness is narrow in scope, but is an important and even indispensable utility for the applications within that scope.

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

I wasn't implying that RED ONE audio was a replacement for a mixer, by any means, just to be clear...it is just that, in most higher-end applications (feature films, broadcast) which I've been involved in, we have sent a wireless signal to the RED for a scratch track, and the audio was not that distinguishable between the two. This doesn't mean, "get rid of the audio mixer," it means RED did a great job when they rebuilt and replaced the RED ONE audio boards. Just to be clear. I'm gratified to hear, Stuart, that the goal is to do even better with EPIC/SCARLET. There are many documentary applications and fast environments where an audio mixer is impractical, and I'm glad RED gave us clean, useful audio - in response to user demands. When the early RED ONEs were released, there was no phantom power either. It will evolve, is all I'm trying to say....

 

[Arnold F.]

My knowledge of the evolution of RED audio boards is nil so I'll have to take your word that it got better. I have no doubt that the video on the new Canon point and shoot is better than it was three years ago.

Many cameras, including RED cameras have audio sufficient for a "scratch" track. If you're saying that the Production Mixers and Post Production Sound Supervisors on the projects you're referring to told you the audio from the camera and the professional audio recorder used on set were indistinguishable then I would be interested to know who they were. As a camera operator or even a production mixer, I've almost never had occasion to communicate with the Sound Supervisor (what many now erroneously call the Sound Designer).

I've been in plenty of "fast" environments, including the reality show I spoke of, and have yet to see one where an audio mixer was "impractical." I confess I really have no idea what that means or how someone not in my department could make such a call. It's hard to imagine as a audio operator I could say, or even be allowed to say that having a camera operator was impractical. I would get a very strange response. On occasion, I have permitted my camera operator go off on his own to shoot b-roll of non-dialogue stuff that I knew, from knowledge of how our show was cut, would have narration over it, or where I knew the camera mic was sufficient to capture the sound of a machine, traffic, crowd or the like.

I wasn't implying that RED ONE audio was a replacement for a mixer, by any means, just to be clear...it is just that, in most higher-end applications (feature films, broadcast) which I've been involved in, we have sent a wireless signal to the RED for a scratch track, and the audio was not that distinguishable between the two. This doesn't mean, "get rid of the audio mixer," it means RED did a great job when they rebuilt and replaced the RED ONE audio boards. Just to be clear. I'm gratified to hear, Stuart, that the goal is to do even better with EPIC/SCARLET. There are many documentary applications and fast environments where an audio mixer is impractical, and I'm glad RED gave us clean, useful audio - in response to user demands. When the early RED ONEs were released, there was no phantom power either. It will evolve, is all I'm trying to say....

 

[Stuart English]

24bit/48K audio is great, but nowadays it's a very low hurdle and even the cheapest recorders can do it in the same way that point and shoots can shoot "1080."

Are you saying a lot of other cameras record at 24bit / 48KHz ? If so that's incorrect, go check out the specs for Sony F3 and Canon C300 for example ...

This is not an argument that using a directly attached mic is better than running a separate sound mixer, of course it isn't. But there are workflows where you don't have that luxury, or where the needs of post production mean you want the best possible sound quality directly on the camera - whether that's from a directly attached mic, wireless audio link, XLR analog line or AES/EBU digital input.

 

[Arnold F.]

Whether a camera has 16bit or 24bit audio is not exactly my point, no. Maybe you're joking, I'm not sure. I think we're talking about different worlds of television and film production, which is totally fine . The one I work in does not view half the project as a "luxury," "impractical" nor, as one person here calls the people responsible for half the whole project, "extra baggage." To get a perspective on that, imagine calling the camera operator a luxury or impractical and you'll get it. Again, it's okay. There are different worlds of film/tv production and I'm not familiar with all of them, just the ones where they need both halves of the project.

Are you saying a lot of other cameras record at 24bit / 48KHz ? If so that's incorrect, go check out the specs for Sony F3 and Canon C300 for example ...

This is not an argument that using a directly attached mic is better than running a separate sound mixer, of course it isn't. But there are workflows where you don't have that luxury, or where the needs of post production mean you want the best possible sound quality directly on the camera - whether that's from a directly attached mic, wireless audio link, XLR analog line or AES/EBU digital input.

 

[Stuart English]

Arnold, this thread originated as a question about the technical capability of the Scarlet audio system, it's not a discussion of the relative importance of audio v's video in the production. I'm not sure I read anyone here say "extra baggage", but even if they did that's nonsense. Audio IS half the experience, but there are also different use cases, some won't support a separate mixer or sound mixer / recorder, so the camera's audio recording fidelity is very important to us.

 

[Arnold F.]

Stuart, I totally agree with you on how the thread started - then we all took it in a tangential direction, like so many threads here. Don't sweat it! Let's get back on topic!

I'll take everyone's word that RED has improved some audio components in their cameras. I really know nothing about that evolution nor is it important that I do. Like I said, I'm certain that a point and shoot now shoots better video than it did 3 years ago - I know nothing about that evolution, either, nor do any of us need to because we won't consider recording picture that way. As I've indicated, I'm absolutely certain that the audio in RED cameras is sufficient for scratch tracks and shooting like B-roll, etc. No issues there. Cheers.

Arnold, this thread originated as a question about the technical capability of the Scarlet audio system, it's not a discussion of the relative importance of audio v's video in the production. I'm not sure I read anyone here say "extra baggage", but even if they did that's nonsense. Audio IS half the experience, but there are also different use cases, some won't support a separate mixer or sound mixer / recorder, so the camera's audio recording fidelity is very important to us.

 

[Stuart English]

i.e. for cinematic / high end production applications it's fine for double system scratch track and / or B roll, and for non-cinematic / high end production applications it's fine as the primary audio recording...

 

[Jason Diamond]

We often use the internal mic's only for production and they have thus far exceeded our expectations including large spot work that the client has been more than pleased with.

Outside of any one cameras capabilities, understanding noise floor and recording a properly 'thick' audio signal is crucial.

 

[Stuart English]

We often use the internal mic's only for production and they have thus far exceeded our expectations including large spot work that the client has been more than pleased with.

Outside of any one cameras capabilities, understanding noise floor and recording a properly 'thick' audio signal is crucial.

Totally agree with that - same concept as a RAW video recording in many ways.

 

[Timur Civan]

EPIC/SCARLET audio isn't fully cooked yet, but my RED ONE audio boards rivaled my audio mixer's Sound Devices recorder. My hope is that the EPIC/SCARLET will eventually rival the RED ONE, even if it means purchasing the Pro I/O Module. My EPIC is definitely noisier than my RED ONEs, and I just received a SCARLET yesterday and haven't done any audio testing.

But to say that recording "anything but a scratch track in any RED camera" is a bad idea is just spreading FUD. These cameras are quite young. Give them time. Enhancements will be forthcoming....throughout the life of the camera....

Just shot a commercial on scarlet. Wooden camera A box into the mini jacks. Sounds perfect.

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

I really know nothing about that evolution nor is it important that I do.

I think that knowing the history of the camera--where the RED ONE came from, how it evolved, what applications it is successfully used for, today -- actually is rather important to new users who may make wrong-headed assumptions about where it stands today. Maybe not for you, but I definitely think it's worth challenging the statement that RED ONE's audio (and eventually EPIC/SCARLET, as they evolve) is unuseable in high-end applications. Is it the best option? No, of course not, but there are environments where sometimes it is the only option. I can name a number of notable applications (a NOVA science doc, a commercial which I shot in Bhutan, and a Wounded Warriors commercial which aired on Lifetime) are three projects which come to mind, which I shot and could only use onboard audio, for a variety of different reasons. All three projects were broadcast nationally. Saying you "won't" use RED's onboard audio is different from saying you "can't" - it's quite useable, and real people are using it for real projects.

 

[jimhare]

Arnold, shot a simple TVC on my own the other day. Had a wireless lapel going straight to channel 1, and a boom mic direct to channel 2 via Wooden Camera, no mixer at all.

Set and tested the level, monitored video and audio carefully during each take, went back to the studio and made a great spot, no fuss.

Took me a lot of trial and error to get a clean signal when I first got the Epic, but slowly learning to trust the results.

Still not as foolproof as the R1, but the hardware appears to be solid.

Jim, if you're able to operate camera and a sound mixer and recorder, and properly boom all at the same time you're a better man than me! In any case, you're dead right about the very limited usefulness of a camera-mounted mic. It's able to record the audio from a "scene" exactly as well as a camera-mounted light illuminates the scene.

I would not say that it being a professional camera means it shouldn't have a mic. Some do, some don't. I agree that with this camera, mic or no, we're at the production level where there should be someone shooting the other half of the film. It's no longer DIY here and I have to laugh when I see rig photos with a shotgun mounted on it.

For those cameras that do have sound inputs, I've never seen any stranger than what's on the Scarlet. I would never record audio meant for anything but a scratch track in any Red camera.

 

[Clint Lealos]

Hey Michael, since there is no internal mic a lot of people have been using a Rode Video Mic Pro to record scratch audio tracks on Scarlet and Epic. However, there is a modification needed. I know it sounds crazy, but you simply have to cut one wire inside the mic and you're good to go. You can read all about it here: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?73671-How-to-make-the-RODE-VIDEO-MIC-PRO-working-with-Scarlet-Epic
Of course there are lots of other options, so do your research and choose the best one for you. Peace.