Aaron Hultin

I have a sound card that has all kinds of inputs, but what kind of connection should I use to run it into Adobe? The problem with the NAGRA is that it doesn't really have 'proper' outputs. It has no XLR out, no 1/4" out (other than the headphone jack), so I'm wondering what kind of connection I should use, also - I have tried outputting through the banana jack (as described in the manual), but it does not seem to work correctly, as there is way to much noise to be useable.

I have been using a NAGRA 4.2 to record sound, and I'd like to know if there is somewhat of a easy way to digitize the audio myself (rather than sending out the reels to someone else). I have a DAT, which is connected to my computer. So I am hoping to run the audio from the NAGRA, through the DAT, and into Adobe Audition. I haven't had any luck so far hooking the two up, I even tried a 1/4" jack to XLR cable in the headphones socket, but its too noisy. The other option I tried was a banana jack from the output socket to xlr, but this too produced horrific results. Curious what the REAL way to do this is? Thanks.

Looking to get a 16mm print made from standard 16mm color negative film. Google hasn't helped much, nor has the search feature for this forum. I have heard it is about $20 per 100' to have a print made. No sound required, just for my own personal projector at home. Any labs you can recommend?

Nobody knows the answer?

I am wondering about loading 16mm film stock (Daylight Stock, mostly) in complete darkness, using my Sony Handycam with LCD screen infront of me on 'nightvision' mode of me so I can 'see' what I am doing, even in a completely dark room. Would this damage/expose the film? I am not sure exactly what the 'Nightvision' mode on a Sony Handycam is (infrared?). Just curious.

Interesting this topic happened to be here as I was just about to post about the same issue. I currently own the Tascam DAP1 DAT Recorder, which is quite common, and likely what your school has. I have just started getting more and more interested in production sound, and have used my DAT with a Sennheiser ME66 Shotgun Mic. I run the mic directly into the DAT (Still waiting on my Pre-Amp in the mail!). I have recorder some very nice, exceptionally clean audio with this method. When I have recorded the audio I want, I simply run a cable from the output on the DAT directly into my sound card, into Adobe Audition. I could send you a sample clip if you like. It is very clean, no hiss, no additional noise. I find the DAT very easy to use, very easy to adjust the levels, and it produces very clean sound. This being said, I have never used any of the other methods mentioned. But, for high quality, clean audio, the DAT has served me well, not to mention being very easy to import and edit. Good luck in the search.

What is the filter size for the Angenieux 12-120 lens? Thanks.

Very nice footage.

So does having a pre-amp allow me to make the dialog a little more 'rich' by playing with the gain and other features? That is my one complaint about my direct-to-DAT audio, is that is was a little, 'hollow'. I want rich ....

A fresh, friendly outlook on a region portrayed primarily as a disease ridden, poverty stricken wasteland. The music added a lot to this footage, without it, the clip may have been less engaging. Beautiful work. PS - There is quite a bit more 16mm footage from this same person, check the "More from this user" tab on the right hand side of the screen, by the thumbnails.

Yeah it made a world of difference. This mic will probably be best suited for someone looking at something a bit cheaper, who is less finicky about audio than me. I really have become quite obsessed with creating clean tracks, and the ME-66 did the trick. But now I am wondering .... Is there any other equipment that would be a good idea to have? A mixer (So my output to DAT is at line level? - Thanks for the tip, Hal) A gate? Compressor? I guess I should mention that I am recording plain dialog, indoors and out, with a single mic only. The audio was good to the point of satisfaction, and I'm not sure if any other equipment will improve it, however I did read that running an XLR cable from the mic, directly into the DAT without going through anything else is undesirable. True? Believe it or not, I am finding audio guides/resources relating to film/tv much harder to come by than the countless 'Make Your Own Movie' style websites that at least touch on the basics.

An update: I have completely eliminated the hiss I was hearing earlier with the DAT. I hooked a Sennheiser ME-66 directly into the DAT (no noise gate/compressor/pre-amp) just the mic running by a short XLR cable into a single channel of the DAT. The DAT didn't pick up any of the 'extra' noise that was bothering me before. It recorded a completely smooth, clean track. The conclusion: Don't buy a cheap microphone. The difference of about $350 - $400 in price between the lower-end Azden SMG2X and the Sennheiser ME-66 was huge. Thanks to everyone who helped my work through the issue, as it is now resolved.

I have since got everything back to normal and functioning properly. It must have been the XLR cable, as I bought a new one and everything is back to normal. Thanks for the input.

This is a good point, I'm forgetting about my usual example of '28 Days Later' which was shot on Canon XL1's. But, as IMDB shows, they weren't using the 'standard' lenses, which right there would likely cost more than a (low-budget) features worth of 16mm stock. So, Mini-DV is capable of being distributed theatrically, however the $8M budget would have been more than sufficient to shoot on 16mm, or 35mm, so they must have had some reason for using the XL1. I agree with this totally. I often see people praising the use of Mini-DV as a cost saving tool, but when you factor in the costs of a high quality production including a capable crew, and professional equipment for lighting and audio, I just cannot understand why someone would not just spring for the 16mm at that point. 16mm is so much more rich and deep and beautiful than something a $500 camcorder from Best Buy is going to come up with.

I have just done a side by side comparison of Mini-DV, and 16mm film (for just this type of post!). I will be posting the results of that comparison as soon as I get my footage back from the lab, but until then: The only way to get a real film look, is to shoot on film. I haven't personally made a feature, but have shot quite a bit of both Mini-DV & 16mm film. To even compare Mini-DV to 16mm borders on offensive. Mini-DV is a format for people not ready/able to spend the extra money on film, and for family vacations. I would absolutely not shoot on Mini-DV over 16mm. 16mm will obviously be (much) more expensive than a handful of Mini-DV tapes, but the quality is simply not comparable. Also, theatrical distribution would be completely out of the question, as Mini-DV's miniscule resolution cannot hold a candle to the 16mm format. A software program will not make Mini-DV look like 16mm film. It's a simple as that. It just won't. It can't. The other 'filmmakers' you refer to in your post are videomakers. They make videos, not films.

I have been looking to add a new microphone to my audio kit, and have been looking closely at the Sennheiser MKH-816. My budget allows for it, and from the reviews & information I have read, it looks top notch. I have only used the Azden SMG-2X and (very) recently, the Sennheiser ME66. Both have produced good results, but I would like to upgrade. In terms of this price range, is there anything that is superior? How have your past experiences gone with this mic?

I'll pick up a tester this afternoon. I was hoping to pick up a more expensive XLR cable, as the one I bought was quite inexpensive, in the hopes it will have less hiss. Currently I am just messing around with my DAT and Adobe Audition recording dialog as practice for the future. I am really interested in audio, and am trying to create the absolute cleanest sounds possible, and as it stands right now I am dis-satisfied with the results, as I am getting recordings with a ludicrous amount of hiss. To correct, I am going to be looking at alternate microphones, a gate for the DAT, and higher quality cables. Am I ever glad I am doing some thorough testing at this stage, rather than when the actual film is running through the camera. Thanks for the input.

I've tried a few different set-ups, the shotgun mic feeding into just one channel or the other, and then tried with an XLR 'splitter' (not sure of the actual name) to both channels. All of these methods have allowed me to record in the past, and earlier today infact, and now nothing is recording at all. I will have to play around some more and see if I can get it working. I think I may have actually messed up the microphone itself, so I will have to rent one and test to see if I can get it working again, either that, or I will try a different XLR cable as I think it may not be making a proper connection.

Hello everyone. I have been using my Tascam DA-P1 for a bit now successfully, and suddenly I cannot get it to pick up my mic anymore. Its an Azden shotgun mic, and I have used it to records lots of stuff and it has worked great, and when I was experimenting a minute ago with reducing hiss (its got brutal hiss on this cheap mic!) and I just cant get it to pick up anything from the mic. All of the settings seem to be correct, everything is plugged in, but nothing is coming through. I even changed batteries to fresh ones on the mic. The only thing I can see is its reading 0db on the display screen, and I'm sure when its working correctly this does not read zero. Any ideas on how to get this back on track? Regards.

I was hoping to try out Spectra Film & Video for an upcoming 16mm shoot. The short shoot is quite basic, a handful of daylight dialogue scenes, a scene with 4 people playing street hockey in bright red/black jerseys (outdoors around noon in bright daylight), and a few brightly lit indoor scenes. I was hoping to use the same film stock for all shots, but am having trouble selecting a stock. They offer: 7201 VISION2 50D 7205 VISION2 250D 7212 VISION2 100T 7217 VISION2 200T 7218 VISION2 500T I hope to have rich, saturated colors. Grain or no grain, not a problem. Also, I am trying Spectra Film & Video for the first time, how have your experiences in the past gone with them? Thanks for the direction.

I have been testing a TASCAM DA-P1 DAT recorder with a Azden SMG-2X mic. It is functioning and recording normally, but unfortunately I am experiencing quite a bit of hiss, and I would obviously want to eliminate this. I have tested two different XLR cables, both of which have the same problem. I do have access to a Sennheiser ME66 microphone, so I am hoping to try that out and see if it fixes my problem. I am using high quality headphones, the Sennheiser HD 280, so I doubt the problem is from them. Are there any things you could suggest to help me solve this problem? PS - I currently only have the mic feeding into the left channel, as I don't have a XLR splitter to feed my single mic source into both the left and right channels. I am going to be picking up a splitter later today so I can feed into both channels, hoping this will reduce the hiss somewhat. In the meantime, any suggestions? Is the Azden SMG-2X a poor choice? Thanks.

I watch eBay for Beaulieu's fairly often. One of the factors that seems to effect the final sale price is the actual photographs of the items themselves. I picked up a mint condition Beaulieu R16 PZ for $550 USD. The pictures of the item were quite poor, and I think this affected the bidders. However, just the other day, a 'regular' (non PZ read: no power zoom, no auto exposure) in 'fair' condition went for about $1200 because the seller had posted nice pics of the camera actually being used on set with a director behind the lens, and some crew milling about. The pictures were more 'exciting' and I believe helped to fuel the dreams of the bidders, a great looking camera actually being used on set, rather than sitting around in a dark closet somewhere. So this is something to keep in mind when you are selling, try and get some really nice photos of the item in question. Also, like other replies have mentioned, they really do vary greatly. I would probably try and list when there are no other ones available, and be sure to set a reserve you can live with, just in case! Good luck.

Hey Scot thanks a lot for the information. I love shooting with my Beaulieu and hope to do more with it.

Hey everyone, I have a number of questions about anamorphic lenses and the Beaulieu R16 Automatic. I currently own the camera, but to date have only shot in the standard 4:3 ratio. I have been successful with shooting sync-sound, as the one I own runs exceptionally smoothly, and is rock steady at 24 fps. It had been great for creating some beautiful images, and I would like to try something new if possible. My first question, and most important: Does the Beaulieu R16 Automatic accept anamorphic C-Mount lenses? I have been looking into this, and as far as I can tell, the answer is ... undecided. I read a post in a different forum from someone who said they had used an anamorphic lens with their R16, and had good results. But then, in other posts - I read that this is impossible. I am unable to determine the true answer for this question to date. From what I have read, 16mm cameras that can accept anamorphic lenses will squeeze the image so that when projected, it is at a 2:66:1 ratio. Then, with some cropping/masking of the sides, one could end up with 2:35:1 ratio. Am I understanding this correctly? Does this apply to the Beaulieu R16 Automatic? I have read a fair bit about this topic, and from the limited information I can come up with, it does not seem possible to use an anamorphic lens on a Beaulieu R16. Therefore, if you wanted to utilize the 2:35:1 ratio, rather than 4:3, you could frame your shots as such, and then simply mask the top and bottom during projection to come up with a "false" 2:35:1 image. The reason I refer to it as "false" is because it would not really be as wide as if you shot your footage using an anamorphic lens, would it? I have included this diagram, to illustrate what I mean: If you shoot with an anamorphic lens, are you getting a 'wider' image? Notice the first diagram. There is far more picture to the left and right of the subject's face, than there is in the bottom diagram. The bottom diagram represents the "false" 2:35:1 that I am talking about. It is really just 4:3, but masked during projection. The major difference of course being that the image is not as wide, and does not include as much picture to the left and right of the subjects face. Is this diagram accurate in terms of how an anamorphic 16mm lens would capture and image, and then be projected versus using a standard lens with framing for 2:35:1 aspect ratio? This is my first [essay] post by the way, I hope to learn from, and contribute to, this forum. Thanks