Why is sound still like this?

[Mark Toia]

Slates inform, so that's not really the issue. The clapper for the most part is a nice double check in case other things go haywire.

I worked on a very speedy gig this year and we didn't slate at all, but we did jam sync timecode and synced things up after wards. I tested the workflow extensively before even attempting this and it worked great.

I've also recorded straight into the camera and that works nicely as well. Just different workflows and tools. Having a dedicated recorder/mixer allows for more control and there's no reason to not feed that signal to camera wireless or via cord if you want it. Many productions do this and it sounds like this might be the missing link in your situation. That's a pre-production and production issue in my mind.

Again though, that clapper sometimes can be a life saver if you somehow forget a step or two during the day. Making movies is sometimes like working on a submarine. Having a few fail-safes is useful.

Phil...

You need a good slap on the back mate.

No one, and I mean no one.. (including RED leaders) brings more to this Forum than you.

Even though your stating the obvious to many working pro's , the knowledge and should I the time you put into each post is exceptional. Not to mention some of your Beta testing feedback.

Well done mate, Well done.

Proud of you, and Im sure Jarred is to.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Is there no professional grade audio interconnect that can send multiple audio tracks (to the camera in this case)? There definitely should be a way to send 4-8 iso tracks to the camera from the mixer via one-cable, which are then recorded as 4-8 isos in-camera.

I have never seen a camera that can do 8 audio channels. Four, yes. And again, the shoots I mentioned were doing ten channels of audio (9 isos and one mono mix). Lastly, the issue of having yet another cable hosed into the camera is an understandable annoyance for the crew. I often have to fight a little bit just to get one channel from a 10-ounce wireless receiver onto the side of the camera, just as a scratch track. And I know of many, many major productions that just go "film style" with no audio at all to camera. They usually have a separate video assist guy who can play back picture and sound from his workstation, outside of camera.

Slates inform, so that's not really the issue. The clapper for the most part is a nice double check in case other things go haywire.

I worked on a very speedy gig this year and we didn't slate at all, but we did jam sync timecode and synced things up after wards. I tested the workflow extensively before even attempting this and it worked great.

I've also recorded straight into the camera and that works nicely as well. Just different workflows and tools. Having a dedicated recorder/mixer allows for more control and there's no reason to not feed that signal to camera wireless or via cord if you want it. Many productions do this and it sounds like this might be the missing link in your situation. That's a pre-production and production issue in my mind.

Again though, that clapper sometimes can be a life saver if you somehow forget a step or two during the day. Making movies is sometimes like working on a submarine. Having a few fail-safes is useful.

Phil is very wise. All of these comments are 100% true and reflect my experience as well.

 

[Mike P.]

That's why I was asking Mark. Seems to me that, technologically, there shouldn't be much preventing such functionality. I can appreciate the discipline of "old school" film production methods as much as the next guy, but it's time to move on and there are no excuses now that most productions are shooting digitally. Just as film has finally been replaced after 100 years, I think it's time audio move-on too. Both systems are file-based now, both systems are digital, both could be put on the same platform (the predominant one being the camera) and then it's up to the user/production to decide whether or not to use it (and I'm fairly certain it'd become the new normal faster than digital cinema did).

Don't misunderstand me; it'd be exactly the same as now, except instead of one XLR/wirless feeding a reference track, it'd be a single "multiXLR" that feeds 8 isos into a camera that can record said isos.

 

[Antti Pirskanen]

Within our industry there are many well established production techniques that are shared by technicians around the world. Some of these techniques are dictated by the limits of the current technology and years of experience with them. Often a big part of the reasoning for using a particular production protocol is because it has been battle tested in numerous productions over the years and found to be the most pragmatic and cost efficient way to guarantee quality results with the technologies and devices that are available to us today.

Camera manufacturers are sometimes facing a "Not in my backyard" type challenge if they try to innovate and introduce new camera features that have the potential to change these well established protocols and workflows and to mesh two traditionally separated domains into something new that is potentially more streamlined. I agree 100% with people who are saying that location sound requires a dedicated professional who has the ability to monitor the sound that is being recorded. That is among his or her many other duties that boil down to being responsible that the recorded sound is indeed optimized and usable. On the other hand, I also agree that, with modern technology there is no technical reason at all (besides tradition, ideological separation of camera and sound departments and lack of technology implementations in existing hardware) why the master recording of the audio should be done on a separate device instead of in-camera. And just to clarify, with this I am not referring to any existing camera, but to a theoretical camera that could be built by combining the most recent inventions in camera and sound recording technologies. Whether there really is a need or market demand for such a device is a completely different question.

I am aware that a wireless link for sound will never be 100% reliable. Therefore a backup recorder is, and will always be necessary. However, in the future, while using the aforementioned theoretical camera, a separate sound recorder could be the backup recorder. The master recording could be made in camera. With the robustnes of new digital transmission technologies such as Sony's under appreciated WiDIF-HP, high quality wireless sound in-camera is a theoretical option already now.. albeit only with 2 or 4 channels and with no proper monitoring capability.

But I see no obstacles why the successors of WiDIF-HP wouldn't have the potential to transmit up to 8 channels. It is only a natural evolution, from wired to wireless, from a single mono channel to stereo recording to 4 channels to 8 channels. The receiver size will go down, the price will go down as well. This might not happen in the next 5 years or even 10 years, but it will happen eventually.

With the ever increasing ubiquituousness of new wireless technologies; wireless follow focus, wireless video, MOVI style gimbal motion control signals, metadata transmission etc. the wireless spectrum is getting more and more crowded. With the co-operation of radio spectrum authorities, equipment manufacturers and camera and sound departments, in principle there is a possibility to create a unified and standardized wireless production environment where all the sound data and associated metadata are transmitted and recorded reliably to a single file in-camera... even wirelessly. Right now, this is science fiction and, like Marc W. predicted earlier in this thread, the possibility of this happening in practice is indeed nil.

However, I think that one shouldn't dismiss the requests for technological innovation or change in production techniques just because they seem unprofessional, impractical or otherwise alien from the perspective existing and proven workflows.

I see a two conflicting philosophies here: on the other hand the voice of seasoned professionals who know what works in practice in Hollywood right now and on the other hand people who are willing to experiment even to compromise business objectives or the technological quality of the sound recording to achieve a particular artistic goal. A clapper board can be the appropriate tool in many, many situations, but when filming documentaries, for example, it may be an artistically better choice not to use it.

I think that it is important to remember that there's more than one way to skin a cat. And even more importantly, there are varying budgets to do it as well. To quote my compatriot Renny Harlin: "In Europe, film making is perceived as an art form with marginal business possibilities, and in the US, film making is a business with marginal artistic possibilities."

Although this discussion is not about art vs. business, I hope that differing views about the potential to integrate new technologies to a single, new generation recording device can be respected. There is no reason not to brainstorm about new workflows that could go together with it. With their first products RED changed the game in the camera world. In order to outgun the newest well integrated offerings from other camera manufacturers, I think RED needs to allocate more resources and effort on timecode and sound quality issues as well. The race is about image quality, of course, but it is also about file sizes, and, in many cases, about production pipeline convenience.

Sincerely and with utmost respect to all the location sound professionals, without whom we would all be watching silent films.

Antti

 

[PatrickFaith]

i am hoping the new red wireless api will help make it a bit easier to sync everything on set.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Don't misunderstand me; it'd be exactly the same as now, except instead of one XLR/wirless feeding a reference track, it'd be a single "multiXLR" that feeds 8 isos into a camera that can record said isos.

Check out this new $4500 Sound Devices audio-only machine that records up to 64 channels of digital audio:

Granted, very few productions will need 64 channels, but I've had many where I wished I could have 12 or 14. On the recent musical Les Miserables, I believe they were using two simultaneous 16-track machines for a total of 32 tracks.

At some point, I think there's a need to Keep It Simple. Forcing a camera to record lots and lots and lots of audio channels is fraught with problems, mainly because (as I said months ago in this thread) you've now introduced another variable into the equation. What if the camera operator bumps the connector? Who's monitoring the headphone output of the camera? What if you need to label each track with the name of the character on the set? Who's responsible for entering the scene & take metadata? What if you need to enter Notes for each sound take ("airplane in BG," "car noise," "bad lav on track 11")? What if the camera is recording at high speed, which turns off all the audio tracks, but you still want to record audio? This is far, far more complicated than you think.

Again, syncing up sound and picture is tinkertoys. Look at it this way: sound and picture are processed separately in post. You don't go into a color-correction room and start remixing the picture; you have a specialized room set up for color, and another room -- probably in another building -- with large speakers and a giant audio console, remixing the sound. Trying to do everything in one place at the same time is fraught with problems. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel and consider there are good reasons why some traditions are important and need to be preserved.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Thank you guys! For bringing this thread back to it's topic! :smiley:

That's why I was asking Mark. Seems to me that, technologically, there shouldn't be much preventing such functionality. I can appreciate the discipline of "old school" film production methods as much as the next guy, but it's time to move on and there are no excuses now that most productions are shooting digitally. Just as film has finally been replaced after 100 years, I think it's time audio move-on too. Both systems are file-based now, both systems are digital, both could be put on the same platform (the predominant one being the camera) and then it's up to the user/production to decide whether or not to use it (and I'm fairly certain it'd become the new normal faster than digital cinema did).

Don't misunderstand me; it'd be exactly the same as now, except instead of one XLR/wirless feeding a reference track, it'd be a single "multiXLR" that feeds 8 isos into a camera that can record said isos.

This is what I meant. It's not about "just sending wireless audio to the camera", it's a whole new workflow between the two. You still record to an external device, but only as backup and to build a library of sound for the sound designer. But the main bulk of the audio, from each take, will be recorded in the same fidelity and quality onto the camera, directly into the video file.
The camera has it's own feedback to the sound operator, so whenever the audio is recorded to the camera, the sound operator will hear if there's any trouble with it. Whenever there's need for enviromental sounds or anything which isn't recorded in camera, the sound operator can just switch the feedback to the external recorder instead.

This workflow requires new technology (duh!). First of, the camera need to have the ability to record the same kind of high quality sound that external recorders do. Timecode isn't an issue for this sound as it is bound to the video files and will have the same timecode. If the sound designer needs this sound, the RAW program (like Redcine) should be able to split up the sound so you get them all with the same timecode as the video.
Second, the wireless capabilities need to be internal to the camera; it's difficult to get high quality sound through connections and cables to enable a lot of tracks at the same time. It's also difficult to do those scenarios where you shoot a full shot of an actor on a crane with a 100mm lens and the sound operator is far off. So the wireless technology must be incorporated into the camera, integrated. It also helps that you don't have to rely on third party technology that has their own batteries.
Third, the wireless technology need to be a new standard or a current but interference-free transfer in real time. I'm lost here as to what is out there, but trust me, something will be invented.
Fourth, the technology must become a standard. It has to become a standard for developers of both cameras and external recorders, otherwise it will not work. Think "This new camera comes with WIREfeed 2.0 technology" while an external recorder can be sold with "optimized for WIREfeed technology with WIREfeed 2.0".

That is my "vision" for it and it will not impact negatively on any sound designer or sound operator. It will rather help everyone so that both production and post production is faster.

 

[Shiblon Wixom]

Until some camera manufacturer builds an atomic clock into the camera, for absolute and indefinite TC sync, there are to many ways in which something can go wrong with wireless signals. It also might be a bit crowded to have an AC, Operator, and Sound Guy all working simultaneously off the same camera while trying to shoot a scene. There are to many practical reasons for the sound department to run their own independent audio recorder, separate from camera, but as long as there is a TC sync then dealing with sound is relatively simple

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Until some camera manufacturer builds an atomic clock into the camera, for absolute and indefinite TC sync, there are to many ways in which something can go wrong with wireless signals. It also might be a bit crowded to have an AC, Operator, and Sound Guy all working simultaneously off the same camera while trying to shoot a scene. There are to many practical reasons for the sound department to run their own independent audio recorder, separate from camera, but as long as there is a TC sync then dealing with sound is relatively simple

You couldn't do 4K, RAW highspeed for under 10 000 USD - 15 years ago, so why do you think it's impossible to invent a robust system that works, either by timelocking wirelessly or sending audio wirelessly?
You do know that wireless electricity is making it's return since the tesla-days? If they can make safe and working wireless electric devices, why not sound.. why is it so definitely hard to achieve this?

 

[Doug Beatty]

You couldn't do 4K, RAW highspeed for under 10 000 USD - 15 years ago, so why do you think it's impossible to invent a robust system that works, either by timelocking wirelessly or sending audio wirelessly?
You do know that wireless electricity is making it's return since the tesla-days? If they can make safe and working wireless electric devices, why not sound.. why is it so definitely hard to achieve this?

Let's use wireless electricity tech to work on getting rid of generators on location before we start complaining we can't get 16 radio mic ISOs onto a 5 separate cameras 150 feet away from the mixer. At that point, I may have to modify my trunk to fit the miniature cell phone tower and amp I'll have to start lugging around.

After that, we can work on a shock collars that activate every time producers yell at you for Comteks to go up before a take or talent touches a transmitter.

Then we can make a new BWAV format that spoils itself every time an editor tries to render a Boom and Lav summed to a single track or a way to watermark a scratch track with a repeating dogma "do not put this audio in the final edit...do not put this audio in the final edit"

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

You couldn't do 4K, RAW highspeed for under 10 000 USD - 15 years ago, so why do you think it's impossible to invent a robust system that works, either by timelocking wirelessly or sending audio wirelessly?
You do know that wireless electricity is making it's return since the tesla-days? If they can make safe and working wireless electric devices, why not sound.. why is it so definitely hard to achieve this?

This tech already exists. Zaxcom is a leader in this area - but Ambient is coming on strong with ACN. Issue is not the tech - it's getting people to open their minds to the fact that weather they like it or not - there's a MUCH better way to do 99% of what we do every day on a set ... if we are willing to .... CHANGE.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

This tech already exists. Zaxcom is a leader in this area - but Ambient is coming on strong with ACN. Issue is not the tech - it's getting people to open their minds to the fact that weather they like it or not - there's a MUCH better way to do 99% of what we do every day on a set ... if we are willing to .... CHANGE.

Yeah, that's exactly my point!
The thing is that we have all accepted that the visual part of technology in filmmaking is always changing, no one denies the death of film and the advent of video, no one denies new innovations in VFX-departments and finishing. But when speaking of sound, there's not much of a change. It's mostly done in the same way it's always have been done. Some will argue that theres new technology now that didn't exist 15-20 years ago and yeah, it's digital now, but you still work with sound like you are shooting on 35mm film and there's no real reason for it in a digital world.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Until some camera manufacturer builds an atomic clock into the camera, for absolute and indefinite TC sync, there are to many ways in which something can go wrong with wireless signals. It also might be a bit crowded to have an AC, Operator, and Sound Guy all working simultaneously off the same camera while trying to shoot a scene. There are to many practical reasons for the sound department to run their own independent audio recorder, separate from camera, but as long as there is a TC sync then dealing with sound is relatively simple.

Exactly. Very well said. When I wear my sound hat on set, the last thing I want to do is make a pest of myself to the camera department. They have enough to worry about. They take care of their thing, and I take care of mine. All they need from me is a simple wireless reference feed (self-contained, 1 wire, has its own 12-hour battery), and a timecode box. Done. They've got decent mono audio all day long. It works great for allowing the director to judge performance in playback.

When the timecode is identical on sound and picture and slate -- which Mr. Glans apparently did not do on his production -- syncing is instantaneous in every editing program I know of. (In the real world, there's sometimes a 1-2 frame offset, but it's consistent and can be handled by a 1-step adjustment in post.)

I thought of another reason not to record all sound in camera: we do a lot of Wild Sound Takes where we either record extra audio, sound effects, or ambience. If all the sound is in-camera, we now have to clog up the camera with many extra minutes of non-picture material, rolling the camera when we're doing an audio-only take. You'd be surprised how often these takes save the scene. If you're using an external audio recorder, the file size is very small, plus it doesn't tie up the camera department.

I really believe Mr. Glans' anger is anchored in ignorance of the process. (This is not a criticism -- we're all ignorant about a lot of stuff, but we eventually learn.) If you had to feed 6-7-8 channels of wireless tracks to the camera all day long, the potential for malfunction increases exponentially. And again, the issue of monitoring comes up. Who's going to listen to these tracks? What if there's momentary intereference on one or more tracks? Who would know if it happens? The on-set sound mixer listens to lots and lots of tracks while mixing, making sure the isos are good, riding levels, getting ready for unexpectedly loud (or soft) line readings. All of these things are important and necessary. The sound recorder is also recording on two drives simultaneously, so it's already backed up -- something many cameras will not presently do. There is no more simple way than to simply record sound the right way to begin with, and that will save you all kinds of time and money in post. Some of these things don't necessarily take a lot of effort, but they do take some expertise and understanding.

I kind of have the same problem with people who say, "hey! I have a 10,000 ASA camera! Now, I don't need to light!" No, you still need to light the set, place the shadows, provide keys and fills, and follow all the rules. Technological breakthroughs are not a substitute for skill and technique. There are some great breakthroughs coming through now -- the new Denecke / Sound Buddy system appears to unify timecode and metadata for slate and timecode, and Ambient has a similar system -- so this at least improves the logistics on set. But sound itself is another problem for which the existing cures are easy to implement if you just take the time to understand them, and hire the right people to perform the work.

 

[Antti Pirskanen]

You couldn't do 4K, RAW highspeed for under 10 000 USD - 15 years ago, so why do you think it's impossible to invent a robust system that works, either by timelocking wirelessly or sending audio wirelessly?
You do know that wireless electricity is making it's return since the tesla-days? If they can make safe and working wireless electric devices, why not sound.. why is it so definitely hard to achieve this?

I think that wireless electricity is a gimmick that will not enjoy long-term success in a world where energy efficiency is becoming more and more important. Wireless power inherently has a much lower efficiency than wired electricity.

The issue with transmitting data wirelessly and reliably is that nowadays the radio spectrum is very polluted. Baby monitors, wireless car keys, fluorescent lightning and a myriad of other devices can create harmonics that affect many other frequencies besides the main frequency that they are operating on. To compensate for this, the only feasible method to combat against random interference on a specific frequency is spread spectrum and frequency hopping signals. Also radio waves will bounce unpredictably and the orientation of the antennaes will affect the quality of the received signal. That is why most modern high quality wireless audio receivers use diversity technology to switch between multiple antennas in real-time. To make a "safe" system with modern radio technology one would have to increase the transmission power, use multiple frequencies simultaniously and co-ordinate the frequency usage with other users in the area. This is something that is not going to happen unless it is mandated by a law that is also enforced ardently.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I really believe Mr. Glans' anger is anchored in ignorance of the process. (This is not a criticism -- we're all ignorant about a lot of stuff, but we eventually learn.) If you had to feed 6-7-8 channels of wireless tracks to the camera all day long, the potential for malfunction increases exponentially. And again, the issue of monitoring comes up. Who's going to listen to these tracks? What if there's momentary intereference on one or more tracks? Who would know if it happens? The on-set sound mixer listens to lots and lots of tracks while mixing, making sure the isos are good, riding levels, getting ready for unexpectedly loud (or soft) line readings. All of these things are important and necessary. The sound recorder is also recording on two drives simultaneously, so it's already backed up -- something many cameras will not presently do. There is no more simple way than to simply record sound the right way to begin with, and that will save you all kinds of time and money in post. Some of these things don't necessarily take a lot of effort, but they do take some expertise and understanding.

I understand your point, but I'm not ignorant of the process. I know it and I know what is needed. If you look at my detailed "vision" for how the technology "should" work, then you see that the on set sound mixer isn't out of a job, quite the contrary. As I described, the monitoring is done on the external device, the feed is through the cameras system so that what you hear is what ends up on those files, on top of that, the external device records a backup internally. The main point of this is also that if you hear it through the camera, you can also have the timecode feed back to the backup, so it won't drift more then a few frames if there's any problem. And if there's a problem you will hear it. If there are tracks recorded just for the sound designer, not intended for editorial with dialogue, then you don't need those feeded to the camera. It's a twopoint system, they, the camera and external device are linked in a way that isn't done with any current technology.

I'm aiming for an open mind to the subject, many just repeat how the process is done today, I'm speaking of what could be done with technology that isn't invented yet, remember that.

 

[Shiblon Wixom]

If the production, sound department, and/or DIT cut corners, then unfortunately the entire mess gets dumped on the Editor, which can be very frustrating and often happens on low budget shows. Save a $1 during production but spend $10 later on post seems to happen a lot when you have short sighted or inexperienced people in charge.

I find the entire post process goes more smoothly if no sound goes to camera, and you have a good sound department that is diligent with the lockit boxes. Camera scratch sound is simply more work and another hurdle to trip things up or make things more confusing. If you don't want to sync by TC in the NLE, then ask to have the master sound files embedded during the transcode process.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Asynchronous caching to a central server is what I really want. Most cameras are only rolling 1/10th of the day. Gigabit Wifi is just around the corner. What I want is a Borg Cube assimilating all data on set into one location. Every device should have a local memory card but when the connection is reliable it'll start synchronizing to the private on-set cloud. All video whether it's RED or Alexa or GoPro while the camera is idle will be getting dumped to the cube. All of the audio will be getting dumped to the cube. All of it will be Sync'ed. There was a kickstarter for a $400 slate with apparently perfect synchronization for more than 12 hours without a frame of drift. That's good enough. No need for an atomic clock.

Then if you open Premiere and drag in a video clip all of the audio tracks recorded at that exact timecode will get sucked in. No need for 8 tracks of audio streaming into the camera. You could also be sucking in live streaming video as well but that would be separate from the cube and just a meta-data entry machine and live overlays etc.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Asynchronous caching to a central server is what I really want. Most cameras are only rolling 1/10th of the day. Gigabit Wifi is just around the corner. What I want is a Borg Cube assimilating all data on set into one location. Every device should have a local memory card but when the connection is reliable it'll start synchronizing to the private on-set cloud. All video whether it's RED or Alexa or GoPro while the camera is idle will be getting dumped to the cube. All of the audio will be getting dumped to the cube. All of it will be Sync'ed. There was a kickstarter for a $400 slate with apparently perfect synchronization for more than 12 hours without a frame of drift. That's good enough. No need for an atomic clock.

Then if you open Premiere and drag in a video clip all of the audio tracks recorded at that exact timecode will get sucked in. No need for 8 tracks of audio streaming into the camera. You could also be sucking in live streaming video as well but that would be separate from the cube and just a meta-data entry machine and live overlays etc.

Even better, this is what I'm after, innovation, new thinking, leaving "how it's done" behind and think about new ways to improve the entire process of making movies. Most of us started out in our youths making movies by just point and shoot with our cameras, it was the mentality of how to make movies. But then we learned that it's more complicated to create the cinematic quality needed in the professional world.
But keeping that mentality when we think about filmmaking technology, that it should really be as easy as just point and shoot, will make us focus on what's important; the heart and soul of the stories we tell.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I find the entire post process goes more smoothly if no sound goes to camera, and you have a good sound department that is diligent with the lockit boxes. Camera scratch sound is simply more work and another hurdle to trip things up or make things more confusing. If you don't want to sync by TC in the NLE, then ask to have the master sound files embedded during the transcode process.

There's a lot of truth to this. Every major American TV show I know just avoids sound in camera entirely, and the philosophy is "treat it like film." That's actually easier for the sound department, since it's one less thing to worry about, and the camera department appreciates that there's no additional box on the camera (other than timecode). A timecode lock box is mandatory​.

What I want is a Borg Cube assimilating all data on set into one location. Every device should have a local memory card but when the connection is reliable it'll start synchronizing to the private on-set cloud. All video whether it's RED or Alexa or GoPro while the camera is idle will be getting dumped to the cube. All of the audio will be getting dumped to the cube. All of it will be Sync'ed.

Call me cynical, but I see this as just one more potential thing to go wrong. Who manages this device? Who backs it up? Where does the power come from? How do you guard against wireless interference going to and from the cloud? If the data is going in packets, what happens when it becomes desynchonized (which does happen sometimes with packet data)? How do you pull this off if you're shooting in a jungle, or out in the desert, or in downtown LA under a microwave tower, or while driving in a car?

There was a kickstarter for a $400 slate with apparently perfect synchronization for more than 12 hours without a frame of drift. That's good enough. No need for an atomic clock.

The TCXO (temperature-controlled crystal oscillator) used in all Denecke and Ambient slates is not that expensive or complicated. I only paid $750 each for my two full-size wooden Denecke TS-3EL slates, and you can drop them from a height of 3 feet onto concrete -- which I've seen ACs do -- and they still work. They light up, they're visible in bright daylight, the numbers are big and very readable, and they hold timecode sync for more than 8 hours. I see no need to replace them... yet.

Again, sometimes simple technology is rock-solid and works great. Sometimes, a printed map is actually better and more accurate than a $1500 GPS, too. I love my iPhone and have used them for almost 7 years, but I still carry a simple spiral notebook and a pen in my pocket on every shoot. Analogue paper never crashes, lasts damn near forever, requires no batteries, works in many different kinds of lighting, plus I can hand it to somebody without making a copy. It's just a question of using the right technology at the right time.

Having said that: I could never go back to "the old way" of doing sound with two analogue Nagra 1/4" tracks with no backup, or 2 digital DAT tracks. Having the security of multiple CF cards on a decent digital audio recorder is a huge safety net. And I again point out that the Red currently can't record to two hard drives at the same time. (The Alexa only can with a lot of trouble and expense.)

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Call me cynical, but I see this as just one more potential thing to go wrong. Who manages this device? Who backs it up? Where does the power come from? How do you guard against wireless interference going to and from the cloud? If the data is going in packets, what happens when it becomes desynchonized (which does happen sometimes with packet data)? How do you pull this off if you're shooting in a jungle, or out in the desert, or in downtown LA under a microwave tower, or while driving in a car?

That's the great thing about a borg cube, it doesn't matter if it doesn't work, it just makes things easier. It's like wifi at starbucks, if it's there, great. If it goes down or you can't use it--you have the physical media. It's a passive device to assist workflow. Think of it like a VFX pipeline. When it works as designed it saves everyone time and just makes life pleasant. When it goes down--you go back to the bad old days of doing things manually. Desynchronization of packets can be handled with checksums.

At the end of the day all of your sound, all of your picture and all of your meta data is available as a searchable unified database. Whatever process you're using for backing up mags and cards remains but the entire production also has one consolidated resource as well. It would consist of a power plug and a web server. Control it through a tablet.