direct to HVX200 or double system?

Barry_Green said:
You may be quite happy with the results. Or you may not. Only your ears can judge.

However, I would say that there are lots of jobs being done where the audio is recorded directly into the camera (no mixer) and people seem content. Going through a good (and it must be good!) mixer can improve the quality. Recording to an external dedicated 24-bit recorder will also improve the quality (and also the hassle factor, as now you'll have to sync up sound manually). So where do you draw the line at "good enough"? Only you can answer that.
Click to expand...

Very nicely put, Barry! Thanks a lot.
I hope you would not be annoyed if I still push slightly further, for I really respect a film to have a good sound.
If my budget is real tight, and I can either have a 442 mixer or 702T recorder, what would you, or any expert here, suggest me?
Thanks a lot.
King
 
c3kings said:
Very nicely put, Barry! sound.
If my budget is real tight, and I can either have a 442 mixer or 702T recorder, what would you, or any expert here, suggest me?
Thanks a lot.
King
Click to expand...

I would use the ~$2000 to RENT the equipment needed for my movie. Jeremy said it best, "Do you want to own equipment or have good sound?"

Cheers
 
King,

AC=Assistant Camera. Depending on the project, and whether you're running film or video, there can be multiple AC's on a shoot. On film shoots, usually it's the second AC that handles the slate (this person is also known as the "loader/clapper" since they are also responsible for loading film into the magazines). In the video world, there may not be an AC, in which case you usually have a PA or someone that handles the slate.

A new TC slate can run about $1200 and up. There are used Denecke slates that go on eBay for about $700. If you're looking at Denecke, though watch out for the right model number. You want a TS2-SB or a TS3. The TS1 did not have a TC generator built in, so it either had to be hard wired or wireless connected to a TC source.

As far as setting the time on the camera, you can set it to 00:58:30 and then immediately turn on the slate. This will approximate a jam, but it will still be off, and there will probably be some drift. The nice thing about jamming is that you can correct any drift by just re-jamming. You can't do that with this scenario.

Hope this helps,

Phil
 
wabbit said:
I would use the ~$2000 to RENT the equipment needed for my movie. Jeremy said it best, "Do you want to own equipment or have good sound?"

Cheers
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, and you are right.
But my point is not about renting or buying. OK, let me rephrase my question: if I can "rent" either a good mixer or recorder, what would you suggest me to do?
Thanks.
King
 
ptalsky said:
King,

AC=Assistant Camera. Depending on the project, and whether you're running film or video, there can be multiple AC's on a shoot. On film shoots, usually it's the second AC that handles the slate (this person is also known as the "loader/clapper" since they are also responsible for loading film into the magazines). In the video world, there may not be an AC, in which case you usually have a PA or someone that handles the slate.

A new TC slate can run about $1200 and up. There are used Denecke slates that go on eBay for about $700. If you're looking at Denecke, though watch out for the right model number. You want a TS2-SB or a TS3. The TS1 did not have a TC generator built in, so it either had to be hard wired or wireless connected to a TC source.

As far as setting the time on the camera, you can set it to 00:58:30 and then immediately turn on the slate. This will approximate a jam, but it will still be off, and there will probably be some drift. The nice thing about jamming is that you can correct any drift by just re-jamming. You can't do that with this scenario.

Hope this helps,

Phil
Click to expand...

Phil, it is very informative and educational for me! Thanks a lot!! King
 
It seems the answer of my discussion about EITHER 442 mixer OR 702T recorder is "No comments." from my follow forum-mates in here.

But it is kind of my real situation, a shoe-string budget, but I am really a little bit crazy about the sound quality of my film.

Maybe, can anyone tell me the main function of a 442 mixer, please?

Say I am already using a 702T to do the recording, and I assume 702T's pre-amp is as good as 442. Then the main function of 442 will be the metering, which is nice, big and bright. Am I right about this?

Also, I realize that it seems the knobs for setting the level on 702T are very small, so it may be difficult to adjust, particularly during a sudden velocity change.

This is my understanding, and I am waiting for experts' inputs. Maybe,

Thanks.

King
 
the 442 is amixer with 4 inputs
the 702 is arecorder with 2 inputs
if you record to the camera you dont need recorder
if you have more then 2 microphones you nedd something else then 702 or add a mixer in front .
i dont really know your scenario but from what i get you dont have clew what you need , i think it would be better for you do this research after you have at least brake down shooting with your recordist to check if you really need ext recorder and if you dont, what kind of mixer you need
about sound quality of your film , it would be much influence from the acoustic situation and your mixer tallent then if you will go separte or not .
 
Oleg 2 said:
the 442 is amixer with 4 inputs
the 702 is arecorder with 2 inputs
if you record to the camera you dont need recorder
if you have more then 2 microphones you nedd something else then 702 or add a mixer in front .
i dont really know your scenario but from what i get you dont have clew what you need , i think it would be better for you do this research after you have at least brake down shooting with your recordist to check if you really need ext recorder and if you dont, what kind of mixer you need
about sound quality of your film , it would be much influence from the acoustic situation and your mixer tallent then if you will go separte or not .
Click to expand...

Oleg,

First of all, I really appreciate that you have been helping me by answer my questions.

Actually, my scenario is quite simple. I bascially use only one boom mike, and I am shooting a documentary. My interview basically is the one sitting down and talking. In other time, I shoot my subjects' living situations, mostly static shots, and the sound person basically just picks up the ambient sound of the actions.

Let me tell you what I have been doing. Then you may know better why I have a uncomfortable "either mixer and recorder" situation. We have been using a Tascam DAP1 without mixer.

No, we never use a mixer. However, when I look at the posts in here, I realize that many of the experts are using mixer, even though they are just using one mike. Then I question myself that there must be some advantages that I don't know yet by using a mixer in front of a recorder, and I would like to learn. You know, for just adjusting the level and looking at the meter, DAP1, even coming with a limiter, can do all these already. Why I have to invest my very limited money to a mixer and carry one more piece of equipment to the location if this "box" actually doesn't improve much of the quality? Or I miss out something really big, and I didn't know.

Thanks.

King
 
wabbit said:
Generally, if you have a decent recording device, like the HVX, then the mixer would be the first thing to get. I don't know if you need/want a 442 or a 302 or even a cart mixer. This thread has a good way to build up from a small sound kit to a larger more inclusive one: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=51526

Good luck
Click to expand...

Thanks, Wabbit,
I think I will use at most 442, not a cart mixer because I am basically just use one boom for a simple documentary shooting.
King
 
i think that you will be more then fine with good mixer in front of your camera
302 or mix pre {i prefer the 302 since it has better meters and more menu stuff which could be very helpful for future situations)
the money you save invest in wireless system get better sound in interactions where the boom is not able to work or situations you dont know what happens , and of course there will be other projects you will need more sound :-)
my 2 shekels
by the way you can use 702 as apreamp and ship it outs directly to the camera - but why ?
 
Oleg 2 said:
i think that you will be more then fine with good mixer in front of your camera
302 or mix pre {i prefer the 302 since it has better meters and more menu stuff which could be very helpful for future situations)
the money you save invest in wireless system get better sound in interactions where the boom is not able to work or situations you dont know what happens , and of course there will be other projects you will need more sound :-)
my 2 shekels
by the way you can use 702 as apreamp and ship it outs directly to the camera - but why ?
Click to expand...

Thanks, Oleg 2,
Are you saying that you even prefer 302 more than 422? That's a nice information because I am not sure if I need a 302 or 422. Yes, I do have a beginner wireless system, Sennheiser eW100, which uses only mini-jack, but the sound is really great!
King
 
i say you dont need more then you need , the quality of the 442 and 302 are quit identical , the aditional features on 442 and extra outs dont give you anything , so why to pay something you dont need .not to say the 302 is much nicer with dv (semy profesional, and yes the dvx hvx are not any better then others with its gain structure and levels you can send) cameras as it output gain structure which is more then halpfull in this situation , spend the extra money on your wife or girlfriend i am sure it give more benefit for long run:-).
 
Oleg 2 said:
i say you dont need more then you need , the quality of the 442 and 302 are quit identical , the aditional features on 442 and extra outs dont give you anything , so why to pay something you dont need .not to say the 302 is much nicer with dv (semy profesional, and yes the dvx hvx are not any better then others with its gain structure and levels you can send) cameras as it output gain structure which is more then halpfull in this situation , spend the extra money on your wife or girlfriend i am sure it give more benefit for long run:-).
Click to expand...

Got you, and you are right.
 
Oleg 2 said:
spend the extra money on your wife or girlfriend i am sure it give more benefit for long run:-).
Click to expand...

Wish I would have had this advice years ago...so does my wife. :)
 
I don't think you're going to see much of a quality difference whether you run an external mixer into your camera, or run an external mixer into an external recorder. However, I would advocate using a recorder. The reason for this, is that it gets the wires out of your camera. Give your camera crew the freedom to move around untethered, and let audio work as it's own seperate, independent department. No matter what, this will give you better control of both sound and picture, and will go a long way towards making a more professional film.
 
fleaguit said:
I don't think you're going to see much of a quality difference whether you run an external mixer into your camera, or run an external mixer into an external recorder. However, I would advocate using a recorder. The reason for this, is that it gets the wires out of your camera. Give your camera crew the freedom to move around untethered, and let audio work as it's own seperate, independent department. No matter what, this will give you better control of both sound and picture, and will go a long way towards making a more professional film.
Click to expand...
more professional , what is that mean ?

i can send my tx to the camera and get freedom ( sorry my tx is worth more then some cameras :-))
there are films that you really need it and there are tones of films you can pass on external recorder , it doesnt make more or less professional , the only professional is your knowledge knowing your limitation .
for me proffesional is not amature , while the amature could be done with sony hd 900 , the professional could be done with web cam .
if they pay for it , it is professional with or without cables .
for the film like his, its not necessary double system at all and it will be unprofessional to loose money on extra recorder and the time to sync it later,while you can get the same quality ( not the same but acceptable+++) going straight to the camera . sorry , but it is not reality show with 360 around and 14 mm lens . this is the exactly stuff people doing straight forward from the day the umatic came to production field and all the beta days which came later till these days.
recorder is nice - but for other jobs
 
fleaguit said:
I don't think you're going to see much of a quality difference whether you run an external mixer into your camera, or run an external mixer into an external recorder. However, I would advocate using a recorder. The reason for this, is that it gets the wires out of your camera. Give your camera crew the freedom to move around untethered, and let audio work as it's own seperate, independent department. No matter what, this will give you better control of both sound and picture, and will go a long way towards making a more professional film.
Click to expand...

Well if he was shooting FILM I would agree here, as the only way to do it is with an external recorder, as film cameras can not record sound. In the video world there would very rarely be a situation where it would be better to record to an external recorder. A good ENG sound mixer will keep up with a cameraman in the most grueling run and gun situations while tethered to the camera. The logistics of trying to sync sound in post later on this type of shoot would be a nightmare with a camera like the HVX that does not have proper jam sync capabilities. As for "having better control of sound and picture" if you have people that know what they are doing with each department, being tethered together should have no bearing on the quality.
 
I just came back to this thread and wholeheartedly agree with what has been said. Ditch external recording in this situation if possible.

I'd recommend a 302 mixer tethered to the camera. This scenario gives you a third channel beyond your stated normal configuration of boom and EVO wireless.

This quality, standard cable below is the way you do it off-the-shelf. It has a quick breakaway feature to make movement easier when you're resetting or simply need to move without your sound man next to you. It also allows both audio operator and camera operator to monitor the recording return (the audio tech can also monitor the mix). This is crucial in single system photography.

http://www.taiaudio.com/Cables/PSC-15'-ENG-Breakaway-Cable-(302)-ta880.html

e
 
I can think of about a million reasons why on a dramatic narrative production I would rather use an external recorder. On video or reality/documentary style shoots, I would agree that the best bet is to tether the sound guy and camera op together. It saves time in production and in post, and requires less gear.

However, when it comes to doing sound for dramatic narratives, I would go external whenever possible. The first reason being that, I want my sound mixer monitoring the final levels (on the recorder), not the camera op on the camera's viewfinder. Also, when you have wires plugged in, it leaves a million things that can go wrong. On a recent shoot, I was camera op, had my hvx200 on a steadicam with my boom op jacked right into the camera. We were doing a running shot. In the middle of the take, my cheapo britek 2k watt light literally explodes and starts a small fire. In the commotion, I put the camera down on the steadicam, boom op forgets he's plugged in during the confusion, takes one step too far, and the HVX comes crashing down, breaks the LCD screen, and we have a 700$ repair on our hands. Now, this situation was created by stupidity, both on my part, and of the boom op. However, had I been using an external recorder for this shot (as I should have) this accident would likely never have happened.

When you start talking about putting any sort of movement onto your shots, you do NOT want to be tethered to audio. If I'm working as a camera op, I want audio guys worrying about sound, not me worrying about wires.

As an audio engineer, I want sound being laid down as hot as possible, with the least amount of noise, and no peaking. I don't want to rely on a cameraman to be watching those levels for me. The more concentration each department has on their own responsibility, the better the result will be in the end. For the same reason why your camera team should not be dressing your actors, they shouldn't be worrying about sound either.

-Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top