Jump to content

Professional Audio Evaluation


Guest Glen Alexander

Recommended Posts

I'm not saying that it doesn't matter if the sound options are bad either. I think they should be fixed, and eventually will get better hopefully. But I'd rather the small team at Red focus their time on the picture, because the sound issue is an easy workaround, especially if you're recording to both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member

Sending sound to the camera and using it is pretty routine for us. In some cases, they even do it wireless. The camera operator in that case listens on an earphone, but only for gross failure of the audio due to RF. If there's a problem, they'll either go back to wires if possible, or flag it for post if not. The separate audio recorder is always there as a backup. The production mixer still has full responsibility for getting good sound on that machine. It's almost always OK on the camera, too.

 

Phil's right. As we squeeze every possible dime out of our budgets, eliminating the labor intensive syncing of dailies is a no brainer.

 

For those cases in which a broadcast quality audio input isn't used, it can be handy to have an on-camera scratch track microphone.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that's what it said. Mr Rogers seems to have confused the two.

 

24-bit is genuinely tough. Almost no real world mic/preamp combo really has 24 bits of noise floor and even if you/ did, you'd be able to hear people coughing in Lesotho.

 

Actually, why I got confused is because for some reason I understood microphone input as XLR input and not "mic level" input as they actually meant. What I would like to see is for SoundDevices to test multiple RED's to make sure that it wasn't just the one they tested. I'm also wondering if they tested with the new Mini-XLR--because I know that makes a difference with phantom power.

 

Matthew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except if the camera has crap audio inputs, 'course. You wouldn't usually expect to feed a camera with line level inputs even if you were recording single system.

 

Do you not normally run line level out from your mixer? I've yet to use any broadcast camera that I would use the phantom power or mic level unless I really have to. For me, I run everything through my MixPre and then line level into my RED or other camera. I would think on most productions that it would be odd to use anything BUT line level.

 

Matthew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Well, if you manage to ascertain that the mic preamps have an inherent self noise of -144dB or better please let us know.

 

And yes I know that's impossible.

 

P

 

Never mind that; how would anybody be able to tell if a 24-bit ADC was monotonic? (That is, as the voltage is slowly increased from zero to the maximum, all sequential values between

0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 and

1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111

should appear).

 

People out there with 2A3-based Audiophile Stereo amps with microprocessor controlled filament supplies will be demanding answers!

 

Fun ADC Fact: If a one Micron (one millionth of a metre) movement of a microphone diaphragm was able to induce a one bit change in the digital output of a 24-bit Analog-to-Digital Converter, to drive the ADC to overload, the same diaphragm would have to move eight metres (28 feet!)

 

This is probably also impossible :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sending sound to the camera and using it is pretty routine for us. In some cases, they even do it wireless. The camera operator in that case listens on an earphone, but only for gross failure of the audio due to RF. If there's a problem, they'll either go back to wires if possible, or flag it for post if not. The separate audio recorder is always there as a backup. The production mixer still has full responsibility for getting good sound on that machine. It's almost always OK on the camera, too.

 

Phil's right. As we squeeze every possible dime out of our budgets, eliminating the labor intensive syncing of dailies is a no brainer.

 

For those cases in which a broadcast quality audio input isn't used, it can be handy to have an on-camera scratch track microphone.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

 

Apart from high end drama, almost all other video and HD productions I've worked on use single sound.system sound. If RED is expecting to address markets other than the drama market they'll need to have broadcast quality sound with line level audio input with a confidence feed.

 

Mic level (with phantom powering) is really only used for single person shooting, but the camera should be able to handle both types of level.

 

The camera does sometime get used to record additional fx track with an on-board mic, separate from the main recording or if shooting where the recordist can't access. Also common as a ref track on music videos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Premium Member
I do wish Red had put some sort of digital audio input on the camera, so you could digitize audio using some nice external device with its own power supply, but still get the workflow benefits of single-system sound. (This should be theoretically possible to do with the current hardware though the USB port, with an appropriate firmware update, but I'm not aware of any plans to Red's part on do this.)

 

Maybe they can get that in the next beta program. I suppose they will have to finish the current paid beta test first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Do you not normally run line level out from your mixer? I've yet to use any broadcast camera that I would use the phantom power or mic level unless I really have to. For me, I run everything through my MixPre and then line level into my RED or other camera. I would think on most productions that it would be odd to use anything BUT line level.

 

Matthew

 

Yes, and wouldn't it be nice if the RED accepted line level? It doesn't....it needs a special cable to pad down professional levels to whatever non-standard level the "designers" came up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

There is also a major audio dropout/interruption problem with the RED that no one seems to have reported. Each time the camera shuts down due to overheating or one of the host of other "reboot" problems there is a corresponding loss of audio equal to the amount of time the camera is down or rebooting.

 

Let get real here people...from my experience and from what I've read EVERYWHERE on sound newsgroups this is NOT a camera ready for prime time production. Every single person that I've spoken with who has shot with RED in Seattle has reported some sort of anomaly and or MAJOR difficulty. Guys shooting with ice packs on the body etc etc. It's a beta test plain and simple. I'm betting RED will make it sooner or later, but I'm also betting that if you put a current RED in a time capsule for a year or two and pulled it back out, not one of you would want to use it for a shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also a major audio dropout/interruption problem with the RED that no one seems to have reported. Each time the camera shuts down due to overheating or one of the host of other "reboot" problems there is a corresponding loss of audio equal to the amount of time the camera is down or rebooting.

 

Let get real here people...from my experience and from what I've read EVERYWHERE on sound newsgroups this is NOT a camera ready for prime time production. Every single person that I've spoken with who has shot with RED in Seattle has reported some sort of anomaly and or MAJOR difficulty. Guys shooting with ice packs on the body etc etc. It's a beta test plain and simple. I'm betting RED will make it sooner or later, but I'm also betting that if you put a current RED in a time capsule for a year or two and pulled it back out, not one of you would want to use it for a shoot.

 

Not sure what you are talking about here... the only time we ever heard about ice packs was the 1st day of Soderbergh's shoot with prototypes last year. As for "everyone in Seattle", who exactly are you talking about? Do you have a name? We only have positive feedback from our Seattle customers. It sounds to me like you have year old info... but I'm certainly open to new info that can be traced to someone real.

 

There are currently over 20 features being shot on RED and a major network TV series has just switched to RED. There are countless commercials and music videos being shot on RED.

 

As for a major audio dropout/interruption problem that "no one seems to have reported"... it must not be a very major problem... or they would have reported it. No?

 

Jim

Edited by Jim Jannard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Not sure what you are talking about here... the only time we ever heard about ice packs was the 1st day of Soderbergh's shoot with prototypes last year. As for "everyone in Seattle", who exactly are you talking about? Do you have a name? We only have positive feedback from our Seattle customers. It sounds to me like you have year old info... but I'm certainly open to new info that can be traced to someone real.

 

There are currently over 20 features being shot on RED and a major network TV series has just switched to RED. There are countless commercials and music videos being shot on RED.

 

As for a major audio dropout/interruption problem that "no one seems to have reported"... it must not be a very major problem... or they would have reported it. No?

 

Jim

 

Jim, I ask you this with all sincerity...would you recommend using the RED camera audio for a major production shoot or would you recommend using a seperate audio source or only using RED audio for scratch track?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, I ask you this with all sincerity...would you recommend using the RED camera audio for a major production shoot or would you recommend using a seperate audio source or only using RED audio for scratch track?

 

Matthew... I would always use a separate audio source for recording audio for a major (film) production. Just like I would a film camera. But I would not hesitate using audio in Build 16 if necessary. We have improved audio in the RED ONE just like we have improved everything else... but we still have a ways to go to be equal with an off camera audio solution.

 

Now let me ask you this with "all sincerity"... would you say the RED ONE is not ready for "prime time"?

 

Jim

Edited by Jim Jannard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Now let me ask you this with "all sincerity"... would you say the RED ONE is not ready for "prime time"?

 

Well, I honestly cant comment on the audio because I've never watched any clips that utilize the on camera sound. As far as the picture goes, here is what I will say on that:

 

There are a great many shows on television now that have, IMHO, poor cinematography and visuals. These include pretty much all reality shows and some other shows, not the least of which are Reno 911! and The Shield. Reno 911! is shot on video, although I don't know what camera exactly. The Shield surprises me because it is shot on S16mm using an Arricam SR3. I can definitely say that I have seen some RED footage that is way superior to the footage of The Shield. I don't know what stock they use for that, or how they light, but it really looks ugly to me. Maybe it's intentional, who knows? No doubt also that RED footage tends to look a lot better than Reno 911!. I do tend to like the look of Grey's Anatomy and I believe that is shot on 35mm.

 

I will summarize as this: In the right hands, a RED is most definitely capable of Prime time work, at least as far as visual is concerned as I haven't heard audio yet. I'm sure David Mullen's work on Manure will be somewhat of a benchmark as to what is possible with the RED. Correct me if I'm wrong Jim but David is the most prominent DP to work with RED so far? I think it is great that you get the opportunity to see what a true master can do with your creation. Hopefully more DPs will get the chance to work with it so we all can watch and wait and see the capabilities of your beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong Jim but David is the most prominent DP to work with RED so far?

Well, I don't know, these guys seem overwelmingly positive about the performance of the RED.

They're fully committed to Blu-Ray release, and are absolutely fanatical about producing a quality product.

They've bought several REDs and are anxious for more.

Don't know about sound, but if anybody stands or falls on skin tone rendition, it would have to be them!

If you don't believe me, just check out the downloads on their site.

They're number 1 in the USA and they still want to try harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Glen Alexander
Well, I honestly cant comment on the audio because I've never watched any clips that utilize the on camera sound. As far as the picture goes, here is what I will say on that:

 

. The Shield surprises me because it is shot on S16mm using an Arricam SR3. I can definitely say that I have seen some RED footage that is way superior to the footage of The Shield. I don't know what stock they use for that, or how they light, but it really looks ugly to me. Maybe it's intentional, who knows?

 

Wrong thread if you want to post about video. Please post video elsewhere, posting about RED video causes nothing but people bitching and complaining, this thread is meant as honest an open evaluation of the audio performance.

 

Search threads, many use camera scratch tracks if 'they are good enough' with production costs, values, etc.

 

Have you considered that the Shield is dark, edgy, dirty, raw, at times stunningly brilliant? Why would anyone who produces on that show want a nice, clean, made in a studio look? Bravo to the Shield, no doubt they could easily afford, whatever they want to shoot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Have you considered that the Shield is dark, edgy, dirty, raw, at times stunningly brilliant? Why would anyone who produces on that show want a nice, clean, made in a studio look? Bravo to the Shield, no doubt they could easily afford, whatever they want to shoot on.

 

The Shield is more like ugly, nasty, shaky cam, Blair Witch-esque, wasting money cuz they should have shot on low-rate video instead of wasting money on 16mm film stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Glen Alexander
The Shield is more like ugly, nasty, shaky cam, Blair Witch-esque, wasting money cuz they should have shot on low-rate video instead of wasting money on 16mm film stock.

 

Apparently you've never met anyone who has talked with or knows what life is like in the LA vice squads. jStart another thread if you want further discussions on The Sheild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Well, I don't know, these guys seem overwelmingly positive about the performance of the RED.

They're fully committed to Blu-Ray release, and are absolutely fanatical about producing a quality product.

They've bought several REDs and are anxious for more.

Don't know about sound, but if anybody stands or falls on skin tone rendition, it would have to be them!

If you don't believe me, just check out the downloads on their site.

They're number 1 in the USA and they still want to try harder.

Porn in 4K, not sure that's a good idea... :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Porn in 4K, not sure that's a good idea... :blink:

 

Haha, one area where VHS should reign supreme, indefinitely.

 

 

Just to chime in about the issue of audio and films/videos/movies: I apologize to audio guys in the movie business, but audio is NOT the primary concern of making a movie, visuals are.

 

I forget his name, but I have a book on the making of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The audio guy who shot it used reel-to-reel analog tape. Do you know why? It was NOT because of his love for analog warmth, or tape hiss, or the superiority of analog tape over digital tape. Paraphrasing slightly, his reasoning was that he could drop the tape recorder and it wouldn't break because it was built like a tank.

 

Keep in mind that a significant percentage of audio has to be redubbed in post anyway. It's a fact of film production, wind in the microphone, a plane flying overhead, background noise on the set, echo on the set, someone flushing a toilet somewhere all factor in.

 

 

Now as for "The Shield". Some people in this thread think the show looks ugly. I agree that some episodes have looked very ugly. Some looked like underexposed Super 8 500T stock, the first Vision '79.

 

The show has been all over the place, shot on 800T, 500T 16mm. They've done some good telecine, some bad telecine, and they've tweaked their scans until they fall apart to look like blown-out video sometimes.

 

What I like about the show is that they're constantly experimenting and trying to make it look "real". They don't do things by the book, they break from the mold, utilizing true documentary shooting techniques, or innovating new styles like rigging video zooms to 16mm cameras. I think the way they manually adjust the F-stop is gorgeous, the way they shoot drug busts and pollice raids is compelling.

 

There are/were a great many interesting articles from the Kodak website on this show, and the DOP's inspiration is Vietnam War documentary footage. It's grainy, shaky, and real.

 

They intentionally shoot it in the style of a documentary, without rehearsing their camera operators to make it look real, spontaneous.

 

It's not like Battlestar Galactica, where they shoot it in an intentionally ugly manner. "The Shield" has made mistakes, in my opinion, with taking the look too far in some episodes, but I think that they have succeeded in their goal in having their show look like nothing else on television, although their look certainly is too electronic for my taste at times.

 

As for technical specs, I know they've switched to one stock for all scenes, 7399, and they rate it at different EIs and use the Kodak software to tweak it to look like different stocks.

 

So give them some credit. I think they do a very good job with making the show feel spontaneous and Vietnam War Documentary-like.

 

I certainly don't consider those ends to be a waste of film. And the show doesn't have the look of someone just arbitrarily jerking the camera around like "NYPD Blue" or "The Bourne Identity" did, or the new "Battlestar Galactica" does.

Edited by Karl Borowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Porn in 4K, not sure that's a good idea... :blink:

I think that "Mini Cinemas" with 6 foot or bigger screens and Blu-Ray are going to be the Next Big Thing in the "Adult" industry.

 

And based on my experiences servicing VCRs in the late 1970s/early 1980s, porn well could be the kick-start that Blu-Ray and large-screen "True HD" displays desperately need.

 

When you look at how successful that industry was with 0.25K VHS and Betamax (and make no mistake, an uncanny number of tapes stuck in machines turned out to be porn), one can't help wondering how many of those (then) expensive machines would have remained on the shelves if a significant proportion of (mostly) men's "real" agenda was not to have occasional access to dirty movies. Certainly their families would have gotten the bulk of the benefit out of having a VCR in the home, and many purchasers may have never gotten around to actually obtaining a porn movie, but for what it's worth, I encountered very few people who were totally opposed to the idea!

 

Just think, with all that resolution, 4K porn will create a demand for skilled focus pullers, makeup artists, (and they will need to buy toner and blusher by the drumload:-), lighting people, the list goes on. Wardrobe people may not do so well, but you can't have everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
For what it's worth, I'm quite a big fan of single system sound - it avoids paying postproduction people to do tedious make-work tasks. I consider it a throwback to an age thankfully past.

 

I'm sure there'll be many justifications of it along the lines of "we do it this way because we've always done it this way", but there is no reason it should not be done more often.

 

Except if the camera has crap audio inputs, 'course. You wouldn't usually expect to feed a camera with line level inputs even if you were recording single system.

 

P

If you have been reading the recent posts about "Build 16" on Reduser they make oblique mention of sound-sync problems which are now apparently "fixed".

 

I don't think I would be at all comfortable with a recording system where there was no absolute guarantee that the sound and picture stay in sync at all times. It's one thing for the sound to simply lag or lead the picture by a fixed amount, since that is easily correctable (and is why you still sometimes see operators using clapper boards when shooting video).

 

It's quite another if the sound/picture sync varies depending on picture content, which is very common on "software" DVD players on computers, and cheap DVD and hard drive recorders.

 

With older tape-based formats such as HDCAM (or even mini-DV!) the sound and picture are recorded in distinct "packets" for each field or frame, so there is no way the sound can ever get out of sync with the picture. Since they won't reveal how it is done with the RED, we have no way of predicting how well this will be maintained.

 

Maybe the RED is now OK in this regard, but I would be doing a lot of tests before I trusted the audio to its on-board recording system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Just think, with all that resolution, 4K porn will create a demand for skilled focus pullers, makeup artists, (and they will need to buy toner and blusher by the drumload:-), lighting people, the list goes on. Wardrobe people may not do so well, but you can't have everything.

I recall some years ago reading an article on the US porn industry in German magazine 'Der Spiegel' where they interviewed this veteran director. He was complaining that 20 years ago he was paid 40K to do a film, on 35mm, with a crew and everything, whereas now he gets paid a mere 400 and he's all by himself with just a cheap video camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall some years ago reading an article on the US porn industry in German magazine 'Der Spiegel' where they interviewed this veteran director. He was complaining that 20 years ago he was paid 40K to do a film, on 35mm, with a crew and everything, whereas now he gets paid a mere 400 and he's all by himself with just a cheap video camera.

 

I wonder what der *spiegel* is. . . ;)

 

No doubt though that the bottom fell out on skin flicks with the advent of video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...