Sound ?!

[Chris Kenny]

With no accessible audio dials and no limiter, it seems RED will force the usage of expensive audio equiptment and crew. Why?

This is going a bit far, isn't it? There are small field mixers which, unless I'm missing something, would seem to solve this problem. For instance, this one. That's a two channel mixer small enough to probably bolt to the camera, with dual XLR inputs and outputs (with nice physical levels knobs), and a two stage limiter. $665.

 

[BASSAM MSSALATIE]

LOL!


Offhollywood is going to change a LOT in the new year.

.

Good luck with the new year Mark i like this ambition..:biggrin:

 

[Michael Brennan]

one channel AGC

one channel AGC

For run and gun and observational docs a run a on camera mic is standard issue.
Would be good not to have to add a box on the side.
AGC and on at least one channel would be very useful.

Also are the inputs line or mic level or selectable?


Mike Brennan

 

[Nils Ruinet]

Also are the inputs line or mic level or selectable?


Mike Brennan

Yes, line / mic / mic +48V is available for each channel :

Each of the four 24 bit 48KHz sampled audio channels may be independently enabled. Once enabled, an input type may be selected – either Line, Microphone or +48V Mic. The default for Channel 1 and 2 is Microphone, and for Channel 3 and 4 the default is Line.

 

[David Birdy]

LOL!

I try to walk that line carefully. I like to share and I also like to point people to good technology.

Offhollywood is going to change a LOT in the new year.

Our new facility we are building has a huge component that is targeted to people shooting RED. We want to be a "safe place" for ANYONE who wants to work with RED cameras, weather it is their own camera, a rented camera, or one of ours. So, yeah, we will ALWAYS be testing stuff we can't talk about and creating our own proprietary stuff - but we will now, tied to building the new facility, step up our efforts to help producers, production companies and DPs who are interested in shooting their projects with the RED.

And we will have full 5.1 edit, design & mixing - so, we are totally all about finding the best audio workflows based on new tools.

Good Stuff Mark,

Congratulations on the new space and have a great 2008 !

 

[Adrian T.]

I's jus kiddin roun Big.

You got me there! :wacko:

Happy New Year, Ian! :sorcerer:

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

FYI - this is Gotham Sound & Communications -

http://www.gothamsound.com/main.shtml

They are the THE East Coast audio pros and sell & rent everything audio.

We use them on ever film we make.

 

[Elizabeth Lowrey]

I have 24 bit audio recorders with 44.1, 48 & 96 kHz sample rates and they will overload. It's ugly. A limiter prevents overloads and audio environments are difficult at best to deal with.

With no accessible audio dials and no limiter, it seems RED will force the usage of expensive audio equiptment and crew. Why?

The old DVX could handle audio on the fly and had a built in input limiter for those nasty unexpected loud events that happen...often.

Is this an improvement?

Disclaimer: all below is - obviously - just my opinion.

I expected a limiter on the RED, but, I must say, I never, EVER use one even on one-person jobs. I just prefer to do all that in post with the best software compressors/limiters available to my NLE. Live music, in particular, is something I would never want live limiting/compression on because of my general aversion to robbing music of its dynamic range and nuance (dreadful overuse of compression is my number one beef with modern record producers in the popular genres).

Anything loud enough to startle you while recording (e.g., something falling, a coughing fit, louder-than-expected applause, etc.) is bound to be something in either dramatic or documentary projects that you either don't want to use, where the aesthetics of the sound itself are not particularly impacted by clipping, or where the distortion can be easily forgiven or overlooked (e.g., people screaming because an unexpected tragedy occurred in front of them, car crash, etc., all of which might actually gain -- pardon the pun -- intensity and ugly realism from the temporary presence of audio distortion.) I have been surprised a few times in live performance settings when audience applause peaked much louder than anticipated and I was clipping. But by the very nature of that sound, digital distortion is very hard to hear or distinguish from the source itself.

So I will not personally be affected by the decision to omit an AGC/limiter on the RED. And as long as the supergrip or some similar solution will allow me to program a pair of buttons or a joy stick or a knob to control gain on the fly, I won't be offended by the omission of a dedicated gain knob on the camera itself.

Would still love to hear from someone at RED about the latter.

 

[philper]

Disclaimer: all below is - obviously - just my opinion.

I expected a limiter on the RED, but, I must say, I never, EVER use one even on one-person jobs. I just prefer to do all that in post with the best software compressors/limiters available to my NLE. Live music, in particular, is something I would never want live limiting/compression on because of my general aversion to robbing music of its dynamic range and nuance (dreadful overuse of compression is my number one beef with modern record producers in the popular genres).

Anything loud enough to startle you while recording (e.g., something falling, a coughing fit, louder-than-expected applause, etc.) is bound to be something in either dramatic or documentary projects that you either don't want to use, where the aesthetics of the sound itself are not particularly impacted by clipping, or where the distortion can be easily forgiven or overlooked (e.g., people screaming because an unexpected tragedy occurred in front of them, car crash, etc., all of which might actually gain -- pardon the pun -- intensity and ugly realism from the temporary presence of audio distortion.) I have been surprised a few times in live performance settings when audience applause peaked much louder than anticipated and I was clipping. But by the very nature of that sound, digital distortion is very hard to hear or distinguish from the source itself.

So I will not personally be affected by the decision to omit an AGC/limiter on the RED. And as long as the supergrip or some similar solution will allow me to program a pair of buttons or a joy stick or a knob to control gain on the fly, I won't be offended by the omission of a dedicated gain knob on the camera itself.

Would still love to hear from someone at RED about the latter.

I don't wish to be contrary, but some things you say here are patently not true. Clipping in digital audio is a problem I deal with every day in the audio post of documentaries. It is very audible, it is very hard if not impossible to get rid of, and it is tremendously distracting from the content of the audio, dialog or music, especially in a theatrical playback setting. I complain a lot about filmmakers underecording their audio, but the system noise brought up by pulling up low audio by 25 db in post is probably more acceptable than clipped audio. Trying to change levels of a camcorder on the fly while shooting is better than not riding gain--but you will still often end up with sound bites that are clipped at the start at least while the shooter finds the level UNLESS there is some kind of limiting going on. One can speak of the aesthetics of not using limiters etc in location recording, but if you are riding gain you are doing the same thing manually in any case. Audio can be fixed to a good extent in post, but like picture, only if if there was good recording to start with. You say that anything unexpectedly loud (and thus distorted) will be cut out of your films--ok that's on your films. On the films I work on, esp. those that are of the verite sort, those events are very likely to be the things the filmmaker wants most to include--and those serendipitous occurances are often what makes the film and its story. I spend much more post-time on trying to "rescue" those moments than anything else in a doc, really. I am in total agreement that Red should give handheld shooters an easily accessible (as in on a grip) level control over at least a pair of the audio channels in mic mode. To compete with other cameras they also need to provide some way for the sound to be recorded somehow w/out the intervention of the shooter, as well as some way to trim the line level sensitivity of the inputs to match the wide variety of line sources you will encounter. (Menu is fine, like most low-cost camcorders.)

Re: dynamic range--there aren't really audio recorders made yet that can capture the full dynamic range of a symphony w/ out level adjustments on the fly or peak limiting to keep the system out of clipping. In comparison to these systems, often operating at 96k sampling rates, any camcorder is a rather low-fi recorder. The signiture problems of every camcorder I've ever recorded to (a great many) are lack of headroom and inharmonic distortion (manifesting itself as a brittleness and lack of low-end) compared to an audio only recorder. In truth, the way to get good recordings on a lower-fi media is to control what you are sending the camera in a way that respects its limitations, and that often involves dynamics control. Oddly enough, this comes into play MORE with dialog and doco/verite audio, which makes very peaky and assymetrical waveforms that are harder to sample accurately, than it does w/ music, which makes much more gentle and symmetrical waveforms w/ fewer tiny peaks.

Filmmakers doing their own audio while shooting shows that will end up needing to meet network audio standards (virtually anything that will be televised or go to the web via PBS, Nat Geo, Discovery, E, Turner, etc etc) should remember that the QC these organizations do w/ the sound tracks of the shows they produce or buy has real teeth anymore. They will reject shows with a lot of distorted or otherwise lowfi audio, and they insist that the dialog of such shows (if not the whole mix) fit within a relatively narrow dynamic range window so that viewers don't have to adjust their TV set volume during a show or between channels of a network. So even if you go for a huge amount of dynamic range in recording, you will have to compress it in post to have your show accepted. Rest assured that there has been a tremendous amount of debate on this subject on audio forums, but so far the networks have all held this line and are not backing off (if anything the dynamic range window is shrinking, even on HD channels).

Philip Perkins CAS

 

[Alexis Hanawalt]

Clipping in digital audio is a problem I deal with every day in the audio post of documentaries.

As an editor, I've dealt with the same - especially with wireless mics.

This hasn't come up here - but what about the old standby trick of dedicating 2 or more channels to the same input and setting the levels slightly different, then leaving alone?

 

[I Bloom]

You got me there! :wacko:

Happy New Year, Ian! :sorcerer:

I think a lot of us are going to have a great 0001!

 

[philper]

As an editor, I've dealt with the same - especially with wireless mics.

This hasn't come up here - but what about the old standby trick of dedicating 2 or more channels to the same input and setting the levels slightly different, then leaving alone?

That is commonly done, but in most doco situations one is expected to split out the boom(s) from the wireless so editors have a bailout if the lav mix goes south, which uses up 2 channels. In any case, the usual difference in levels, 3 or 6 db, will not address the huge change in level between someone speaking and someone shouting, so you have to anticipate and ride gain in any case, and still absolutely need the sort of peak level protection built into every professional mixer these days.

Philip Perkins CAS

 

[S. Um]

Clipping in digital audio is a problem I deal with every day in the audio post of documentaries.

I agree with what Phil says. When recording audio, I usually set the peak relatively hot (-10 to -6dB) in order discern the voices more clearly over system noise. -6dB is half of the peak volume, but it's also only 1 bit away from clipping. If the talent decides to yell or just lean closer to the microphone, then you're in danger of clipping. Even if you've got a sound man riding the volume control, the first second or two will still get through. That's why built-in limiters are so useful.

The limiting circuits are not that difficult to implement, and practically every camcorder has them. So I'm surprised that it's not available on the Red, especially since they're targeting the EFP market (which often does not record audio separately).

This hasn't come up here - but what about the old standby trick of dedicating 2 or more channels to the same input and setting the levels slightly different, then leaving alone?

This might be a (clumsy) workaround, but we don't know if we can record 1 input to 2 channels. Also, this would reduce the total number of audio tracks available.

 

[Elizabeth Lowrey]

I don't wish to be contrary, but some things you say here are patently not true.

Philip, I started the entire reply with the disclaimer that everything I wrote was "my opinion", which, by that very fact, is incapable of being "untrue", unless you think I'm lying about what my opinion in fact is. I'm quite comfortable with you expressing disagreement with my attitudes and aural value system but would prefer that you do so while respecting the fact that I specifically proffered subjective judgments, not hard rules by which I think everyone else should abide.

Judging from your signature, I am quite sure that you know more about technical aspects of audio production than I do. But I trust my ears as much as anyone's I've ever known, and not for nothing. Though I don't choose to advertise my credentials in a signature, I will here point out that I am a summa cum laude graduate of Berklee College of Music -- where I studied composition, arranging, and electronic music -- have perfect pitch, and am immensely discriminating and sensitive in evaluating sound, both musical and non musical.

If one is preparing to interview someone for a documentary, presumably you ask the person to speak, to laugh, you say things that you hope might elicit a guffaw or exclamation so that you have a reference for the peak level of their speaking voice, and you adjust levels to hit a little under 0dB at those peaks. I did this not 6 weeks ago on a documentary where I was interviewing 2 people at once, each with their own lav, and never had a single instance of clipping while I also maintained good signal throughout the 3 hour interview. I did add mild compression in post, but I did so with SOFTWARE compressors that I could control at leisure and that perform better and more flexibly than the AGC circuits typical in most cameras and other hardware.

If I'm venturing into a dressing room to get backstage footage for a dance performance using an on camera mic, again, I choose NOT to use AGC. I make a quick assessment of overall sound/noise level in the room, leave myself decent headroom, and roll. If someone were to drop something on the floor that made a loud noise, I would be very unlikely to use the footage (as it would most likely be subject matter irrelevant), and, even if I did use it, would not be upset at transient peaks of a few milliseconds that exceeded 0dB from a sound that is inherently "ugly". Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make about unexpected sounds in relatively controlled environments not usually being the kinds of sounds that are substantially negatively impacted by distortion in the first place.

Certainly I can imagine shooting situations where AGC would be most welcome. If I were tracking wild animals in a jungle and wished to have both high levels for the ambient insect sounds and not distort if a wild hog suddenly galloped through and snorted at full throat. If I were doing police or similar surveillance work where I wanted to be able to hear faint voices in another room but also didn't want to blow the top off when someone close to the camera was speaking. But I don't shoot in such situations and don't personally know anyone that does. Moreover, if I were shooting in those conditions, I probably would not choose the RED camera because I would want features like auto iris and auto focus as much or more than AGC, and those features are not currently available with any combination of hardware. Some sense of what is practical for this camera is in order.

I stand behind my personal conviction that audio distortion which accompanies unexpected explosions of sound which I MIGHT encounter at some point in my shooting experience -- a car crash or other collision/accident while interviewing someone outside, a panicked person screaming, a crowd that unexpectedly roars with applause, a PA system that undergoes an excruciating episode of feedback -- are either (1) not sounds that I would ever have cause to use or (2) are not sounds that need to be "pretty" and that therefore are not severely impacted by the presence of transient distortion. As I alluded to before, the "verite" aspect of a tragedy captured live can IMO actually be ENHANCED by the presence of distortion, which serves as a cue to the audience that something momentous and totally unexpected just occurred in front of them, all without having the sound level of the pre-event ambiance so dramatically reduced that you feel suddenly taken out of that ambiance.

Think back to all the footage of people reacting to the falling of the Twin Towers. On those clips where there was audio distortion at all the screaming (and there definitely was a lot of such footage), did you ever think to yourself, "Wow, the impact of that would have been greater if the shooter had been using (better) AGC and the whole gain level reduced so that that person screaming at the top of their lungs was not distorted?" On the contrary, the horrible distortion of the screaming added, IMO, to the feeling of complete terror and mayhem at the whole event. And it's really the content of those kinds of clips that captivates the viewer, not the technical accuracies of the aural or visual capture.

I respect that you and others with a different sense of aural aesthetics and different shooting needs might feel differently. But I think my approach is "sound" (pardon the pun) for those who share both my aesthetic sense and my habit of working in mostly well-controlled environments.

ETA: None of this implies that I wouldn't welcome the addition of a limiter/AGC function to the RED, only that I would probably never use it and consider it a much less important change than implementing readily accessible manual gain controls.

 

[10s]

I've been recording for over 30 years, limiting is not compression. It wasn't in the 70s and it isn't today. Audio inputs often need to be limited. Limiting is often done to prevent peak clipping. Digital clipping is a loud ugly buzz, it's not at all anything like analog clipping which is often used in music production for fattening. Digital clipping is ugly. Setting the level high enough to overcome internal circuit noise often makes levels prone to clipping, especially when recording soft passages. Imagine two actors speaking very softly and they bump something, will it be, BLLLAAAATTTTT or BUMP, The later can be successully delt with in POST while the former is a problem.

Compression is used in post for dynamic reduction and creating a tight mix. So when I suggest RED needs a limiter, please don't asume I mean a compressor.

A camera used out on the street simply needs a limiter. Have you ever used a Cannon XL or a camera w/o a limiter? What a complete pain. The audio tracks often end up bad because of not having a limiter to crush the peaks, unfortunately the clip is unusable, and it might have been a once only shot. Now on the other hand, say a person used the DVX and they enabled the limiter, the clip is good and the sound peaks are automatically controlled, and it didn't take a second person with a ton of expensive gear to get the decent sound. That once in a life time shot has decent audio, no clipping!

As far as I can see, RED is making a huge mistake and will change this design omission. An audio signal w/o limiting is inviting real audio & client trouble.
Hopefully Build 13 will include what the DVX got right six years ago. After reading the blog, no offense but, I think some folks here need to go record audio for a few weeks w/o a limiter in a dynamic audio environment and then they might be better informed.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

audio recorder - Sonosax

audio recorder - Sonosax

Great manufacturer for audio:

Sonosax.

http://www.sonosax.com/index2.html

Take a look at the SX-R4 (incredibly small and light) or SX-62R or the minir82.

Nice.

Patrick

 

[Elizabeth Lowrey]

I've been recording for over 30 years, limiting is not compression. It wasn't in the 70s and it isn't today. . . .Compression is used in post for dynamic reduction and creating a tight mix. So when I suggest RED needs a limiter, please don't asume I mean a compressor.

The term "compression" in most circles is understood to involve gain boosts for the lower dynamic content as well as gain reduction for the higher level content. But limiting is most certainly "compression" in a single direction . . . that is the reduction of dynamic range by the attenuation of peak and near peak amplitude. Limiting is one half, if you like, of compression and is a less drastic tool for achieving the same end: control of dynamic range.

As far as I can see, RED is making a huge mistake and will change this design omission. An audio signal w/o limiting is inviting real audio & client trouble.
Hopefully Build 13 will include what the DVX got right six years ago. After reading the blog, no offense but, I think some folks here need to go record audio for a few weeks w/o a limiter in a dynamic audio environment and then they might be better informed.

On my DVX, the AGC circuit is turned off. Can't remember the last time it was on.

10s, for your sake and Philip's, heck even for mine in the event that I might ever desire it, I hope RED DOES offer a limiter/AGC circuit modification in the near future. I'm not trying at all to keep that off the camera, nor am I unsympathetic to those who have genuine need for it because of the kind of shooting situations they find themselves in. I just think it's most important -- VITALLY important -- that they first address the lack of accessible manual gain controls.

And if by "blog" you are referring to the Sopranos forum mentioned in my signature, please don't think that little plug has anything to do with my knowledge or experience with audio. The two are, obviously, entirely unrelated.

 

[philper]

Philip, I started the entire reply with the disclaimer that everything I wrote was "my opinion", which, by that very fact, is incapable of being "untrue", unless you think I'm lying about what my opinion in fact is. I'm quite comfortable with you expressing disagreement with my attitudes and aural value system but would prefer that you do so while respecting the fact that I specifically proffered subjective judgments, not hard rules by which I think everyone else should abide.

Judging from your signature, I am quite sure that you know more about technical aspects of audio production than I do. But I trust my ears as much as anyone's I've ever known, and not for nothing. Though I don't choose to advertise my credentials in a signature, I will here point out that I am a summa cum laude graduate of Berklee College of Music -- where I studied composition, arranging, and electronic music -- have perfect pitch, and am immensely discriminating and sensitive in evaluating sound, both musical and non musical.

If one is preparing to interview someone for a documentary, presumably you ask the person to speak, to laugh, you say things that you hope might elicit a guffaw or exclamation so that you have a reference for the peak level of their speaking voice, and you adjust levels to hit a little under 0dB at those peaks. I did this not 6 weeks ago on a documentary where I was interviewing 2 people at once, each with their own lav, and never had a single instance of clipping while I also maintained good signal throughout the 3 hour interview. I did add mild compression in post, but I did so with SOFTWARE compressors that I could control at leisure and that perform better and more flexibly than the AGC circuits typical in most cameras and other hardware.

If I'm venturing into a dressing room to get backstage footage for a dance performance using an on camera mic, again, I choose NOT to use AGC. I make a quick assessment of overall sound/noise level in the room, leave myself decent headroom, and roll. If someone were to drop something on the floor that made a loud noise, I would be very unlikely to use the footage (as it would most likely be subject matter irrelevant), and, even if I did use it, would not be upset at transient peaks of a few milliseconds that exceeded 0dB from a sound that is inherently "ugly". Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make about unexpected sounds in relatively controlled environments not usually being the kinds of sounds that are substantially negatively impacted by distortion in the first place.

Certainly I can imagine shooting situations where AGC would be most welcome. If I were tracking wild animals in a jungle and wished to have both high levels for the ambient insect sounds and not distort if a wild hog suddenly galloped through and snorted at full throat. If I were doing police or similar surveillance work where I wanted to be able to hear faint voices in another room but also didn't want to blow the top off when someone close to the camera was speaking. But I don't shoot in such situations and don't personally know anyone that does. Moreover, if I were shooting in those conditions, I probably would not choose the RED camera because I would want features like auto iris and auto focus as much or more than AGC, and those features are not currently available with any combination of hardware. Some sense of what is practical for this camera is in order.

I stand behind my personal conviction that audio distortion which accompanies unexpected explosions of sound which I MIGHT encounter at some point in my shooting experience -- a car crash or other collision/accident while interviewing someone outside, a panicked person screaming, a crowd that unexpectedly roars with applause, a PA system that undergoes an excruciating episode of feedback -- are either (1) not sounds that I would ever have cause to use or (2) are not sounds that need to be "pretty" and that therefore are not severely impacted by the presence of transient distortion. As I alluded to before, the "verite" aspect of a tragedy captured live can IMO actually be ENHANCED by the presence of distortion, which serves as a cue to the audience that something momentous and totally unexpected just occurred in front of them, all without having the sound level of the pre-event ambiance so dramatically reduced that you feel suddenly taken out of that ambiance.

Think back to all the footage of people reacting to the falling of the Twin Towers. On those clips where there was audio distortion at all the screaming (and there definitely was a lot of such footage), did you ever think to yourself, "Wow, the impact of that would have been greater if the shooter had been using (better) AGC and the whole gain level reduced so that that person screaming at the top of their lungs was not distorted?" On the contrary, the horrible distortion of the screaming added, IMO, to the feeling of complete terror and mayhem at the whole event. And it's really the content of those kinds of clips that captivates the viewer, not the technical accuracies of the aural or visual capture.

I respect that you and others with a different sense of aural aesthetics and different shooting needs might feel differently. But I think my approach is "sound" (pardon the pun) for those who share both my aesthetic sense and my habit of working in mostly well-controlled environments.

ETA: None of this implies that I wouldn't welcome the addition of a limiter/AGC function to the RED, only that I would probably never use it and consider it a much less important change than implementing readily accessible manual gain controls.

I'm very glad your methods work for you. Distortion is still a distraction in any case and will get your show rejected by the networks if still present in your mix. Set and forget audio level methods will always produce lower quality audio than attending to business as the scene progresses, no one can predict exactly what an interview subject or actor will do, and low-fi recorders like video cameras benefit from constant real time level optimization re: their noise floors. An AGC and a limiter are not the same thing, but both are needed for a camcorder to be truly versitile, switchable individually as needed. Limiting and compression are not at all the same thing, and the terms are not interchangeable. The sort of limiting we are talking about is inaudible when correctly done, and does not effect the relative balance of a mix unless really over done--it only affects the very highest peaks at that second. Compression affects virtually the whole audio mix, and I agree is to be avoided as it hugely changes the mix balance of a musical ensemble or scene. Limiters belong in mixers and cameras, compressors belong in post.

I appreciate your attendance to the audio details of your shoots and training as a musician, I choose to use the signiture I do because it simply displays my background (motion picture mixing) and allows people to look at my IMDB page and decide if I know what I'm talking about.

Philip Perkins CAS

 

[10s]

"VITALLY important -- that they first address the lack of accessible manual gain controls."

I agree, how does one operate in "real time" effectively using a menu system? Someone w/o experience must have been in the design of this feature. Or is it that there is an assumption here that a sound man with gear will be present. If so, then they're boxing us into a method of film making. Of course, it doesn't need to be this way, you know, the DVX allowed one man operational freedom. What is really strange with the audio design is the move away from needing only the camera to do audio. Now to shoot with a RED effectively, one needs an audio operator with $ of gear.

Let's do the math: 18,500 + 10-15,000 for RED & accessories + 7,000 for sound mixer and recorder + 5-12,000 or so for lavs, mics, etc. + sound man wages & availability.... = ? ...more money!

It doesn't need to be this way. Just having DVX capability would be better for many shooting situations.

The cameras photographic exposure range will enable us to shoot in many natural settings w/o lighting but now we have these audio features that will not compliment the ability to move quickly and grab shots. Say your shooting footage in a War zone, you'll need an audio man with tons of gear to run beside you? I'm sure someone might argue we could we dub in the audio.... yeah right. For narrative film makers, using real shots with the std. narrative designed shots, adds levels of realism that helps sell the story to the audience.

All the talk of building extra boxes for this and that represents possible design omissions. The idea of design is to figure this stuff out up front, not afterward.

Oh well, the rest of the camera looks really good.

 

[philper]

"VITALLY important -- that they first address the lack of accessible manual gain controls."

I agree, how does one operate in "real time" effectively using a menu system? Someone w/o experience must have been in the design of this feature. Or is it that there is an assumption here that a sound man with gear will be present. If so, then they're boxing us into a method of film making. Of course, it doesn't need to be this way, you know, the DVX allowed one man operational freedom. What is really strange with the audio design is the move away from needing only the camera to do audio. Now to shoot with a RED effectively, one needs an audio operator with $ of gear.

Let's do the math: 18,500 + 10-15,000 for RED & accessories + 7,000 for sound mixer and recorder + 5-12,000 or so for lavs, mics, etc. + sound man wages & availability.... = ? ...more money!

It doesn't need to be this way. Just having DVX capability would be better for many shooting situations.

The cameras photographic exposure range will enable us to shoot in many natural settings w/o lighting but now we have these audio features that will not compliment the ability to move quickly and grab shots. Say your shooting footage in a War zone, you'll need an audio man with tons of gear to run beside you? I'm sure someone might argue we could we dub in the audio.... yeah right. For narrative film makers, using real shots with the std. narrative designed shots, adds levels of realism that helps sell the story to the audience.

All the talk of building extra boxes for this and that represents possible design omissions. The idea of design is to figure this stuff out up front, not afterward.

Oh well, the rest of the camera looks really good.

It seems like a good opportunity for an accessory box, since the Red is built on an a la carte approach and many users won't care about the audio section.
Perhaps Beach-Tek?

Philip Perkins CAS