C200: c300 mark ii and C200 screens interchangeable?

jcs said:
Expensive mics? Lol the C300 II was $16,000! How much for the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II, 70-200 F2.8 II lenses? About the same price as the Schoeps CMC641 + CMIT5U. The $499 Audix SCX-1 HC is very close in performance to the Schoeps CMC641. Professional sound mixing is just another skill, as with creating sounds effects for games. Even if hiring someone else to do sound, it's good to know how to do it yourself when necessary, as well as managing the sound folks in a larger production. Lately enjoying working with ambisonic recording and mixing: 3D audio with HRTFs through headphones is pretty cool (especially when coupled with head tracking). The Sennheiser Ambeo mic works well: https://en-us.sennheiser.com/microphone-3d-audio-ambeo-vr-mic . Might have to try this guy out too: https://en-us.sennheiser.com/in-ear-headphones-3d-audio-ambeo-smart-headset

For post mixing 4-channel ambisonic recordings, including mixing to 5.1 (or 7.1, 9.2, any number of channels you want!), HRTF stereo (headphones), as well as converting mono and stereo sounds to 3D, http://www.ambisonictoolkit.net/ works amazing well, especially considering it's free (was willing to pay for something better, but the paid stuff wasn't better).

While the "standard" Sony 7506 works fine for location monitoring (lightweight, comfortable, cheap), I now use Focal Listens https://www.amazon.com/Focal-Listen-Closed-Over-Ear-Headphones/dp/B01H2NDPZY for critical post mixing (closed back) and customized Stax electrostatics (open back). I use some older Tannoy's through a USBPre2 for desktop speaker monitoring. Listening to final mixes on iPhone speaker & headphones also important these days, as much of content consumption is on mobile.

It doesn't really take that much more work for audio competency in addition to video production skills... https://www.gearslutz.com/ is a super helpful for those wanting to learn more about audio production and tools.
Click to expand...

Sounds like we live in different worlds. I am looking at line items on my budgets. If a client isn't willing to pay for all of this high end equipment, why would you give them that for "free" is my attitude these days. Many times my clients will pay for a sound mixer, which is the best because then I don't have to worry about it. I'm skilled at location sound, I've written books about it and I write the Audio Assist column for www.hdvideopro.com but years ago, when I had an audio post house, I decided I didn't want to become a location sound mixer, even though I have done it here and there. As far as camera cost, why do you think I don't own a C300 MKII? I'm cheap and bought the C200 because it is arguably better quality, better ergonomics and can shoot CRL internally, all factors for my documentary films I am producing, all for under $8,000.00. But you are just talking mics. Most of the location sound people I hire, with a full mic locker, wireless, SD recorder and backup and all of the support gear, are into it for $40 to $100k, no different than owner operator DPs with their camera package.

I believe that someone who knows sound and has the skills and experience, can obtain superior audio results with a $200.00 mic like the AT-875r than the typical camera person with a $2,500.00 mic who doesn't have location sound skills, knowledge and problem solving ability. Great mics do not equal good sound recording, only skills deliver good sound. The bread and butter for my audio post business, back in the day, was location sound repair for TV and documentaries, needed to fix bad sound recording technique captured by non-pro sound mixers like camera people, PAs and producers cousins. I also was in the consumer audio business for a decade before I was in production and mics are no different than speakers, the law of diminishing returns totally applies. Does a Schoeps CMIT5u sound better than the Audio-Technica AT875r? Of course it does. But does it sound 1,000 to 1,200% better? Generally, no. I see a lot of camera people (not saying you guys!) who think that buying a mic like a Scheops is magic and plugging it into their camera will result in magically improved sound when that is simply not so, there is so much more to it, the mic mount, wind protection, boom pole, cable, technique and knowing when to use which mic are all so much more important to the end result.

Not calling out anyone in this thread, but there are plenty of camera people who buy expensive audio gear and still end up with mediocre or worse sound.
 
1. Many beginners buy expensive sound equipment hoping that costly investment in some manner will translate to good sound, skills notwithstanding.

2. Sound equipment retain their value for a long time. The same microphones will work for decades. So when looked at a longer time frame, investment in premium microphones makes sense.

3. Theory of diminishing returns. Beyond a point, investment in an even costlier microphone is not going to improve your sound quality as we move into subjective terrain.

4. So the question is does it make business sense to bring in some much of sound gear for a job where the client hasn't asked for so much.

I use decent sound equipment for my own shoots. However, for freelance shoots, if there is no budget then I only bring the basic sound equipment.
 
Lots of different philosophies. If one is budget constrained, use what's available/affordable (I think Captain Obvious wrote that in his memoirs ;) ). Another common saying is "buy quality, cry once, buy cheap, cry twice".

Last comment on audio: for those truly into max bang-for-buck audio quality listening, if you haven't heard electrostatic headphones ("ear speakers"), this is an amazing deal: https://www.ebay.com/p/Stax-Srs-3100-Condenser-Type-Ear-Speaker-System-From-Japan/10003305240 , + https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000PC4JL4/ , + https://socas3d.com/ , + https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ZGGG3KY/ . Going this route also gives you a little extra comfort / sound tuning for your personal preferences. If there is a CanJam in your city, it's a great way to hear all the high-end headphones in one day (use your phone or compact audio device to audition sound/music). April 7-8 if you're in SoCal: http://www.canjamglobal.com/socal2018

C200 has better quality than C300 II? Isn't that just for internal shooting if one doesn't mind dealing with raw? (C300 II external raw as good or better than C200 raw lite?). Shooting Canon Log 2 (ARRI settings) I haven't felt the need to upgrade (even to an Alexa Mini, etc.: no DPAF). Can only do Canon Log 3 (Canon Log 2 not available) internally with C200 if one doesn't want to deal with raw (8-bit). If one enjoys/needs raw, sure C200 all the way (raw tools still need work, including with color from what I've seen (related to limited WB options in post?)).
 
jcs said:
C200 has better quality than C300 II? Isn't that just for internal shooting if one doesn't mind dealing with raw? (C300 II external raw as good or better than C200 raw lite?). Shooting Canon Log 2 (ARRI settings) I haven't felt the need to upgrade (even to an Alexa Mini, etc.: no DPAF). Can only do Canon Log 3 (Canon Log 2 not available) internally with C200 if one doesn't want to deal with raw (8-bit). If one enjoys/needs raw, sure C200 all the way (raw tools still need work, including with color from what I've seen (related to limited WB options in post?)).
Click to expand...

So far, I am finding CRL to be a dream to deal with. Yes, it's big but it's manageable and FCP 10.4 and Resolve both support it now. It's not as big of a deal as many are whining about. Use the proxy for editing, conform to the CRL at the end, grade away. I'm kind of digging it. I have been buying 4TB USB 3.0 drives for storing it for as cheap as $99.00. Sure, if you are delivering to clients, XF-AVC is better but for my own shoots, pretty hard to beat 12-bit RAW. I have shot side by side with the C300 MKII and while the XF-AVC looks good, the CRL from the 200 looks better, sharper and more detailed with a bit more latitude for grading. IMHO, CRL is as big of a deal as you want it to be. For me, I am shooting the next year with it on our two docs and in 2019 when we go into real post, drives/RAIDs will be cheaper, processing power will be cheaper and more common and we will have an amazingly high quality and flexible 12-bit/10-bit digital negative to cut our films with. For clients, if it's for web or lower end, the .MP4 is fine or we rent C300 MKIIs depending on the shoot. I love the image of the C300 MKII but every time I shoot with one, I curse the stupid AV cables, the clamshell and the location of the audio controls, I don't regret buying the C200 at all over a used or discounted C300 MKII. It was a smarter choice for my needs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top