Fostex FR-2LE Field recorder advice or workflow ideas?I just opened it from box.

Clint Nitkiewiz Hernandez

Clint Nitkiewiz Hernandez

Well-known member
What I really am looking for is a workflow here, or an industry standard of how to record audio for a feature film on location for mostly indoors using the field recorder and a shotgun mic. This question is more specific using the field recorder's file settings, how many flash cards and what size should I have at all times, do I dump files to a computer on set, etc.

So does anyone know what should be the industry standard for recording using the Fostield FR-2LE field recorder? BWF 48/16 or BWF 96/16? For dvd 48 seems to be just great, but recording should it be higher despite the greater file sizes? Also how does one take care of storage, is one card enough for a day of shooting?

Does anyone have a real good workflow to follow? I'm set on video for the moment, but I'm trying to get this audio stuff down as well.

Im using a Sennheiser MKh416 48 Phantom powered as a shotgun mic and will be plugging that directly to the hvx200 p2 camera, I don't think theres a way to see levels but if it sounds good by headphones it must be okay.

I am only using the field recorder to record misc noise clips on set to add in post.

Should I be using the field recorder for everything, dialogue instead of the camera directly to mic?

I am not using a mixer on set, don't think I should really, but hey you guys are the pros just let me know.

I am really aiming for less noise and the highest quality possible before even hitting post.

I am shooting a feature film by the way, and want this to get theatrical distribution so quality is a must here, though my budget is very low, I am borrowing the mic and the field recorder was bought off a friend who had no need for it, just some things to keep in mind.
 
Personally I'd ditch the recorder and get a decent mixer/pre amp to go between your mic and HVX. You will save much more time recording everything to the HVX even foley etc. especially if its on set and you dont really need the manueverability of the recorder. I would still use a pre amp or mixer before going into the fostex as well unless you got it modded by oade bros. for example as the factory pres probably arent much better if not worse than the HVX's. Honestly if you are even thinking of theatrical distribution you should probably hire a real sound man :huh:.
 
Last edited:
Sending the mic direct to the recorder or camera will work but it's not optimum. A mixer will add the ability to control levels plus better metering, limiters, low-cut filters to reduce handling noise, etc.

The Sennheiser 416 is a fine mic but it's not really in its element in a normal reflective indoor environment - outdoors or on a soundstage is another matter. In normal interiors you're liable to find your sound suffers colouration as the mic doesn't reject all off-axis frequencies equally - in fact, at some frequencies interference tube mics like the 416 are not very directional at all. As a result, the recorded sound has a "hollow" ring to it, for want of a better term, like it was recorded in a tunnel. Indoors a hypercardioid (which uses a different acoustic principle to achieve its directivity) will usually give much better results. Since you're looking for that "Hollywood sound," arguably the industry standard go-to mic for interiors is the Schoeps CMC641, though there are a number of other excellent mics at substantially less stratospheric price point. The key point is to use a hyper instead of a shotgun in a normal interior.

You didn't mention how you were getting the mic onto the set. Another key to the theatrical sound is to get the mic close to the talent. Directional mics like the Senn do NOT work like a lens, picking up sound from a distance! They still need to be close to the subject, typically 24 inches or so from their mouth. That means a boom to mount it on and an operator to manage the boom. The rule of thumb is the mic should be just at the frame line, close enough to the talent that they can reach up and touch it.

"If it sounds good in the headphones it's gotta be okay" is a recipe for disaster. Yes, absolutely monitor with cans all the time. But they are only good for the grossest level of evaluations. Many cameras headphone amps are pretty marginal. If things are totally screwed up you'll be able to tell but the camera headphone output can mask other problems so they slip under the radar until you get into post if that's all you're relying on at the shoot.
 
Mixer question

Mixer question

Okay, so what kind of mixer would you recommend? If I were to be shooting in a car or in a desert with no electricity, is this an option? Are the bigger mixers 48V phantom powered by the camera?

would this compact mixer be enough?
http://cgi.ebay.com/MACKIE-402-VLZ3...ameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting

Or do you recommend the bigger one? I will only be using 1 mic.

Also should I really just ditch the fostex? I will need to record different just sound fx at locations to edit in post, is there a cheaper regular recorder that I can buy?
 
Last edited:
Clint - recording to the FR2LE will give you significantly better sound than recording to the camera. The pres are very good for that class of mixer, and better than those of the HVX. Further, the device will have much lower noise than the camera, and recording at 24 bit (24/48 is probably the best compromise) will give you more ability to cleanly boost/manipulate levels in post.

My proposal would be to record everything to the Fostex, and send the outputs of the Fostex to the HVX.

A mixer adds some convenience and may up the quality... you could then have the mixer feed both the HVX and the Fostex. But I would say that, if your budget is limited, the advantage of the Fostex over the HVX is a lot bigger than the advantage of a better mixer's pres over the Fostex. Certainly, even a great mixer feeding the HVX won't be as good as direct to the Fostex. The HVX generates a lot of noise in the audio path (not bad for a camera, but worse than most dedicated audio equipment), and its 16-bit recordings get pretty noisy when you have to boost the levels.
 
Imagine we're in the camera forum and someone who has never shot a film before comes in asking what the workflow for shooting a film is; do I need lights, what is a tripod, how close do I need to be to the actors, etc., and he wants it to make the image as clear as possible because he expects a theatrical release. This is the perspective this type of question needs to be seen from.

I say this not to insult you or say you have no talent or say that you cannot, with time, learn production sound if you want to. I am saying that, at this time, despite your admirable enthusiasm, you lack even the most rudimentary basics of sound and what it takes to record sound for even a student film, much less a theatrical feature.

Your questions involve issues both small and large, which makes answering difficult. If you could give a description of the big picture we could start at the meta level and move downward if necessary. Answers to these questions will help get you in the right direction. What is the movie budget and is it your money? What is the production sound budget? Are you the DP or the production mixer? Let's start there.

SFX
 
Last edited:
ullanta

ullanta

ullanta said:
Clint - recording to the FR2LE will give you significantly better sound than recording to the camera. The pres are very good for that class of mixer, and better than those of the HVX. Further, the device will have much lower noise than the camera, and recording at 24 bit (24/48 is probably the best compromise) will give you more ability to cleanly boost/manipulate levels in post. My proposal would be to record everything to the Fostex, and send the outputs of the Fostex to the HVX.

Hey Ullanta, the fostex only has 2 xlr inputs, but no xlr outputs, so how would I get this back over to the hvx?
Click to expand...
 
RCA out of FR2LE to XLR in of HVX...

Using the output of the recorder like this as a "guide track" on the camera makes synching by waveform fairly easy in your NLE. It also serves as a backup... I haven't actually tried the FR2LE like this, but I think the camera track would be usable (assuming all levels are decent) in the event of a problem with the FR@LE sound...
 
Clint Nitkiewiz Hernandez said:
Okay, so what kind of mixer would you recommend? If I were to be shooting in a car or in a desert with no electricity, is this an option? Are the bigger mixers 48V phantom powered by the camera?

would this compact mixer be enough?
http://cgi.ebay.com/MACKIE-402-VLZ3...ameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting

Or do you recommend the bigger one? I will only be using 1 mic.

Also should I really just ditch the fostex? I will need to record different just sound fx at locations to edit in post, is there a cheaper regular recorder that I can buy?
Click to expand...

Not quite what I had in mind. You should consider an ENG/EFP style field mixer that operates on battery power. There are a number of the market from various manufacturers - a widely used and well respected professional brand is Sound Devices and for field production with one or two mics, either their MixPre (2-channel) or 302 (3-channel) models would be worth considering. Take a look at their site www.sounddevices.com
 
Just to throw in a bit here.
I think we are talking about seperate types of work here. Limited budget aside what is your job? Are you taking care of dialogue? Are you doing sound collection and design? Both?
The HVX won't compare regarding the preamps of the FR2LE. I have the FR-2 and it is cleaner than the HVX. Coupled with a Lunatec V3 preamp and it's a pretty decent tool for sound collection. I haven't used it in conjunction with the HVX for recording dialogue but would definately recommend going Mic -> Fostex -> Camera (for wave matching) if you do.
Best of luck in any case!
Sam.
 
What are "noise clips?"



I am only using the field recorder to record misc noise clips on set to add in post.
 
Mic -> Fostex -> Camera

Mic -> Fostex -> Camera

Sonic: "definately recommend going Mic -> Fostex -> Camera (for wave matching) if you do. "

Hey so I understand that the fostex records better quality than the hvx. I am shooting a feature, may have over 100 hours of footage to edit once shooting is done.

So how do I do "wave matching" if I do go Mic -> Fostex -> Camera.

I have the fostex and wish to do two things.

1. record the live dialogue via Mic -> Fostex -> Camera,
2. record "noise clips", ha, that was my way of saying misc sound effects, say folley for example after the production if needed.

I know how to do 2. Which is plug in a mic, and record, that is straighforward, but...
Mic -> Fostex -> Camera, "wave matching" is something beyond me. I would understand if the fostex had xlr and xlr out, but it only has 2 xlr in and no xlr out! There is only rca out, so I don't see how Mic -> Fostex -> Camera is possible, but if it is someone please advise.
 
Hey! Like I said... FR2LE RCA out to HVX XLR in!

"Wave matching" is visually aligning the camera audio with the audio recorder audio in your NLE.

If you want to speed the process in post, you can clap each take old-style. But, basically, you need to do some good record keeping as you shoot to reduce post complexity. This is true for any feature film workflow... especially if your shooting ratio is so high!
 
I'm not clear on the "wave matching" thing, athough I take it he means matching waveforms in your NLE in post. I can see the advantage of going into the Fostex then out to camera (the LE has discreet L&R outs via RCA) for the purpose of redundant recording for safety and since you don't have a mixer, but I don't see a situation where matching waveforms would be necessary except if you didn't catch the slate for some reason. How do you line up the LE with the HVX? Does the LE have a tone generator?


Clint Nitkiewiz Hernandez said:
Sonic: "definately recommend going Mic -> Fostex -> Camera (for wave matching) if you do. "

Hey so I understand that the fostex records better quality than the hvx. I am shooting a feature, may have over 100 hours of footage to edit once shooting is done.

So how do I do "wave matching" if I do go Mic -> Fostex -> Camera.

I have the fostex and wish to do two things.

1. record the live dialogue via Mic -> Fostex -> Camera,
2. record "noise clips", ha, that was my way of saying misc sound effects, say folley for example after the production if needed.

I know how to do 2. Which is plug in a mic, and record, that is straighforward, but...
Mic -> Fostex -> Camera, "wave matching" is something beyond me. I would understand if the fostex had xlr and xlr out, but it only has 2 xlr in and no xlr out! There is only rca out, so I don't see how Mic -> Fostex -> Camera is possible, but if it is someone please advise.
Click to expand...
 
Ullanta

Ullanta

ullanta said:
Hey! Like I said... FR2LE RCA out to HVX XLR in!

"Wave matching" is visually aligning the camera audio with the audio recorder audio in your NLE.

If you want to speed the process in post, you can clap each take old-style. But, basically, you need to do some good record keeping as you shoot to reduce post complexity. This is true for any feature film workflow... especially if your shooting ratio is so high!
Click to expand...

Okay so I think I see what you are saying, more specifically take the rca monitors out of the Fostex and convert those to xlr then take that to the camera xlr in, I would only need 1 channel correct? So the rca to hvx would only act as a reference file correct, as the quality would not be optimum. I would then take my files from the fostex and sync them more easily to the reference low quality file?

I just don't see why I would need to record anything to the hvx? Sorry this is just really new to me, using the fostex.

I know this is a good workflow because 24/48 from the fostex would be extremely better and critical in post compared to the 16/48 that the hvx offers, which would not allow me to tweak in post without much noise.

Thanks.
 
I just don't see why I would need to record anything to the hvx? Sorry this is just really new to me, using the fostex.

Nor should you. That method is not only reinventing the wheel but also making one that won't roll.

I am not using a mixer on set, don't think I should really, but hey you guys are the pros just let me know.

Whoever told you that you should not use a mixer was totally messing with you. Your production mixer/recordist should absolutely have a mixer. What is not strictly necessary is double system (separate camera and recorder). He/She needs to be able to see and control levels, to assign audio to a channel, to have a low end roll-off, to be able to monitor from either input or return and for many other reasons, not least of which is that you must have a tone generator to line up your recorder.

From here you can send audio to camera and have it record the sound for you. Or, since it will have a "theatrical release," you can get a good recorder (preferably not an FR2-LE) and record only to that. In order to sync your two halves, you roll camera, hold a "slate" in front of it so that the camera reads the information (scene, take, etc.) thereon, roll camera, roll the sound recorder, read the information from the slate so that it is recorded and then clap the sticks affixed to the top of the slate together. Later in post, you match the frame of picture where the sticks meet with the sound of them clapping in your production audio. Lock them. Rinse. Repeat. Or, for the safety of redundancy, you can record both to an independent recorder AND to camera.

The following either don't work or just make no sense: connecting a recorder to a recorder, attempting to operate camera and sound, omitting the use of a slate and trying to sync days of footage by matching waveforms, attempting to be the production mixer on film that gets "theatrical release" (meaning a full post sound crew and mix costing thousands of dollars) with no prior sound experience of any kind.

The universally accepted method producers use to get production sound on the films they're producing: Hire a production mixer. He or she will not only know how sync works but they will know what the practices and equipment used in production sound are called and how to communicate with the other people on set about it in order to do his job, know when you can and can't overlap dialogue, understand perspective and how to use it, know's mic characteristics in order to properly choose a mic for a task, knows what axis is, know what to do when people go off camera, know if you use only one track or two, know what Foley is, know why you have have to tone up your camera, know what the Nyquist theorom is. I could keep going. On a film that gets a theatrical release there is undoubtedly a producer who has some experience so I'm certain that she will hire a mixer.
 
Last edited:
SFX said:
The following either don't work or just make no sense: connecting a recorder to a recorder,... ...omitting the use of a slate and trying to sync days of footage by matching waveforms,
Click to expand...

Connecting a recorder to a recorder, i.e. Fostex to Camera is a smart thing to do in anycase (especially if experience is lacking) Having a backup version of the sound is playing it safe. Matching waveforms doesn't necessarily have to exclude using a clapper. I don't think anyone suggested NOT using one but being our friend here is taking on a pretty significant task having an additional way to align tracks will help. In my experience, using waveforms is actually a pretty time effecient way to do it.

SFX said:
attempting to operate camera and sound,
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that this is his intention

SFX said:
attempting to be the production mixer on film that gets "theatrical release" (meaning a full post sound crew and mix costing thousands of dollars) with no prior sound experience of any kind.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I couldn't agree more.
 
Further, a mixer is NOT a necessity in some cases, especially working with a sleleton crew. If you're not recording more than 2 channels, and have a recorder with decent preamps (and low cuts and limiters), and only one person working sound duties, you don't lose much (or anything) by using the recorder without a mixer. Something like a 722 has pretty much everything you need for for 1-2 track recording. I'm pretty sure the FR2LE does also (other than more outputs and SD's excellent metering).

SFX - do you have something against the FR2LE specifically? I don't have a tremndous amount of experience with it, but it seems to be a resepectable and good-sounding device, and more than reasonable for lowish-budget work. I'd like to hear if you've worked with it an found deficiencies!

Clint - recording from the FR2LE to the camera will give you something similar to what you'd get using a mixer and the camera; it will likely be better than using the camera's preamps alone. So while the sound on the camera won't be as good as the sound on the FR2LE, it'll be good. You may find it good enough for most things if post gets really hairy, then you can only pull in selected audio from the FR2LE (things that need to be boosted a lot, etc)... cutting down your post effort. But most importantly, the ability to sync by waveform is made much easier (in some cases only possible) by feeding the camera the same exact audio stream recorded by the recorder. The waveforms will then be very similar. Syncing the FR2 audio to, say, scratch audio from the camera's built in mics requires some extra steps and extra time... you can matche them up (in many cases), but not with the same precision, so you also need to spend a lot more time doing fine matching "by ear" rather than "by eye"

Clint, I'm giving you advice here for use in what seems like a low-budget, skeleton crew effort. SFX it seems is addressing youas if you were working at a more professional level, based on your discussion of theatrical release plans. Don't be offended, but I think we all suspect you may be in a little over your head. That's OK, that's how we learn! But, although I'm telling you what you can do if you have no other choice, listen carefully to SFX and others' (and my) suggestion that you hire an experienced sound person/crew. It will save you a lot of headaches and get you a better result. If you can, do it!
 
Okay Ullanta, quick question, so the rca signal I will be sending to the hvx from the fostex, is obviously not 24/48 correct? I mean rca signal is way less quality than xlr obviously right? I just want to confirm. Though the hvx could take a max of 16/48, what will the rca cables actually be feeding it? I just don't know the specs of the rca cables.

Yes my "theatrical release" is a bit of a dream, especially because it is my first feature film, but I have to aim high, despite not having a budget to hire a real sound mixer. I am taking all this knowledge in, and will be training a friend who will act as my sound mixer. I am the Director, and DP for the film, not to mention editor, etc, etc, but I will be taking all this knowledge and passing it to the guy who will actually be operating the sound equipment, if he has a problem, at least I will know how to fix it hopefully. Obviously he is working for free because he does not know anything, but once he knows the basics, I think he will do fine, especially because I will review what is being recorded, and checking levels after each shot, etc, and we will do many tests before the day of shooting.

It's a pretty risky thing I am doing, but its less riskier than going in without knowlege. I was going to record my sound on a sennheiser mke 300, convert the 1/8" to xlr to hoook up to my camera, but then I said, hmmm, I should probably try to do some audio research. I mean I do want a "theatrical release" right. So now that mke 300 is sold, and it's time to make a good sounding film.

FYI, I am not so naive about other topics such as visual fx or cinematography, editing, and more, sorry for such the basic questions on audio, but I have to start somewhere, and I just started, I know in a few months, after my shoot is done, I will come back with much more knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top