If you recall from your retail days - the profit margin on a $1,500 camera would be about $500 for a typical outlet that wants to gets a decent allocation of the most popular items and a solid advertising support from the manufacturer. After that, off the majors financial statement, the profit margin are somewhere around 50% (this may include some fixed costs too), more on the higher end, lower on the low, more on lenses, less on the camera bodies themselves.
Fuji X-T3 released
- Thread starter Ken1212
- Start date
Dan- I CARE about sound however don't feel it's worth it for our little productions to shoot dual audio. Listening on Focal (dynamic closed back) and Stax (electrostatic open) with a Sound Devices USBPre2, I found the 1DX II sounds better with the Zoom F4 as a preamp going into Line In (pretty cool the 1DX II has that option vs. only mic level) than the C300 II did straight into the camera (both using the Schoeps CMC641). I'm sure the C300 II would also sound better with the same setup.
Based on your YKK comment (zippering is terrible for audio!), I'm thinking about modding all my DLSR and future mirrorless cameras with the VERITA AK5397EQ 127dB 768kHz/32-bit 2ch Premium ADC (yeah, 768kHz @ 32bit and 127dB SNR baby!) https://www.akm.com/akm/en/product/detail/0055/
It's all 5v TTL so just need to look up the pin outs and get one of these guys to perform the surgery: https://www.tequipment.net/JBC/NASE-1C/Desoldering-Equipment/Rework-Stations/
EDIT: well lookee here! The above mod will sound better than Sound Devices, from: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gee...o-interfaces-their-ad-da-chips-listed-13.html
:tongue:
Based on your YKK comment (zippering is terrible for audio!), I'm thinking about modding all my DLSR and future mirrorless cameras with the VERITA AK5397EQ 127dB 768kHz/32-bit 2ch Premium ADC (yeah, 768kHz @ 32bit and 127dB SNR baby!) https://www.akm.com/akm/en/product/detail/0055/
It's all 5v TTL so just need to look up the pin outs and get one of these guys to perform the surgery: https://www.tequipment.net/JBC/NASE-1C/Desoldering-Equipment/Rework-Stations/
EDIT: well lookee here! The above mod will sound better than Sound Devices, from: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gee...o-interfaces-their-ad-da-chips-listed-13.html
:tongue:
Last edited:
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I just want to know what "full use of luxury pattern layout" is all about? ;-)
I guess the takeaway for camera oriented people is, "Just because you can't hear the subtle or often obvious differences between poor audio and good audio, don't assume that your downstream chain can't."
Audio is a different mindset than video, lighting and lenses and it's okay if you are more into that than audio, but what may be acceptable quality to you may or may not work down the chain, depending on playback systems/venues and context with your desired audience.
I shot an interview on a noisy beach this past weekend with the X-T3 using the Røde Video Micro which is a huge quality step up from the stock X-T3 mic, granted. My talent was also wearing one of our Tascam DR-10Ls with the OST 801. I loaded a clip into FCP X last night and A/B compared the audio from the Røde going into the X-T3 with the Tascam audio and there was simply no comparison. The Røde audio was usable (I was shooting with a 12mm lens only about 2' from talent because I knew the incoming crashing waves would be recorded and I didn't want to overwhelm her voice so I radically increased the S/N ratio by placing the on camera mic very near her. I normally don't like to have a camera right in a talent's face but in this case, it worked okay), I could get away with it but when I click that track off and click on the Tascam track, it's like night and day. Because the lav is placed less than 6" from her mouth and has a Rycote furry on it to mitigate the wind gusts, the sound the Tascam recorded is so far superior, there is no question about which audio we will use. All about choices. Mirrorless audio is always going to be a distant second to even a cheap audio recorder and we are pitching this film to all of the OTTs so sound quality actually matters. If we were just shooting this for our Facebook page for the film and that's it, I don't think it would matter as much. This film will see a professional audio mix on a mixing stage so we are doing it right, even though it's a hassle.
Also the comment about the great thing with these Tascams is you start them recording and just leave them going is so right. Then you have great audio for all of the moments that you aren't rolling, we have already captured some amazing conversations with our talent when we were in the other room setting up cameras and our talent was on a cell phone call or talking to someone off camera. From a storytelling POV, this stuff can be Gold and if you were only recording with your camera, it would all be missed.
I guess the takeaway for camera oriented people is, "Just because you can't hear the subtle or often obvious differences between poor audio and good audio, don't assume that your downstream chain can't."
Audio is a different mindset than video, lighting and lenses and it's okay if you are more into that than audio, but what may be acceptable quality to you may or may not work down the chain, depending on playback systems/venues and context with your desired audience.
I shot an interview on a noisy beach this past weekend with the X-T3 using the Røde Video Micro which is a huge quality step up from the stock X-T3 mic, granted. My talent was also wearing one of our Tascam DR-10Ls with the OST 801. I loaded a clip into FCP X last night and A/B compared the audio from the Røde going into the X-T3 with the Tascam audio and there was simply no comparison. The Røde audio was usable (I was shooting with a 12mm lens only about 2' from talent because I knew the incoming crashing waves would be recorded and I didn't want to overwhelm her voice so I radically increased the S/N ratio by placing the on camera mic very near her. I normally don't like to have a camera right in a talent's face but in this case, it worked okay), I could get away with it but when I click that track off and click on the Tascam track, it's like night and day. Because the lav is placed less than 6" from her mouth and has a Rycote furry on it to mitigate the wind gusts, the sound the Tascam recorded is so far superior, there is no question about which audio we will use. All about choices. Mirrorless audio is always going to be a distant second to even a cheap audio recorder and we are pitching this film to all of the OTTs so sound quality actually matters. If we were just shooting this for our Facebook page for the film and that's it, I don't think it would matter as much. This film will see a professional audio mix on a mixing stage so we are doing it right, even though it's a hassle.
Also the comment about the great thing with these Tascams is you start them recording and just leave them going is so right. Then you have great audio for all of the moments that you aren't rolling, we have already captured some amazing conversations with our talent when we were in the other room setting up cameras and our talent was on a cell phone call or talking to someone off camera. From a storytelling POV, this stuff can be Gold and if you were only recording with your camera, it would all be missed.
Teddy_Dem
Well-known member
Just wondering as I don't do much external audio recording, which lav mic are you typically using with the Tascam?
Agreed. I've always been more focused on sound than imagery and feel that mediocre imagery with powerful sound delivers a fuller punch than beautiful images with mediocre sound. I think the average person may share this view. There may be some kind of psychological explanation inherent to the way the average person responds to aural stimuli vs visual. I think it may be different from someone with a cinematography background who appreciates images over all else.
I don't disagree w/ the notion of using system sound over mirrorless where available, but your above example is kind of misleading. Switch the microphones and placement between the two and you very well may have wound up using the XT-3 audio -- the mic and placement are doing more of the work than the preamps / DAC in that case...
G
Guest
Guest
I would agree with this.
And in general, i’d say sound dept is the one that concedes to the visuals more often than the other way around. So, even though we all say good script and good sound is more important than pretty pictures, on the day, A Cam oftens gets more attention. Sometimes just because it is more of a hassle to move around or find a new background for the composition, but also, because on set the SCREEN is king. It sucks. So overall, i think camera needs to learn to adapt to sound, because most sound people are welll adapted to the needs of camera already.
I’ll add though, one can’t really confuse occupation focus with film making preference. If that makes sense. Essentially everyone is afraid of losing their job or relevency if they don’t deliver, and it doesn’t matter if someone else ‘s job suffers, so long as the one person looks good. It is job security. So even if a cinematographer knows sound is more important, they may disregard all else to make themselves look good. “The image is good, that is all i will be held accountable for, i won’t get fired if the sound suffers”.
Last edited:
I don't know, it sounds pretty sexy though they had me at
If they had added Silky Smooth Buttered Teflon I may have lost consciousness.
Here's something shot yesterday using internal DLSR recording with a Sennheiser G3 and lav (internal gain was set a bit higher than 1 click above off (the best setting for max quality)- still sounds good to me on YT). The lav wasn't set up well (my fault) and we ended up with rustling sounds which I did my best to quickly fix in post (200Hz high pass filter + FFT EQ). At the beginning of the video there's a slight artifact from doing a spectral edit to remove a child screaming (we didn't have time to wait for ideal sound conditions shooting outside in public).
I think it sounds OK- how does it sound to everyone? More info here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?363913-Got-Bokeh-(-Audition-Sprectal-Audio-Editing)
This debate can be quickly settled for the X-T3. Dan- can you record an example clip using the MixPre3 into the X-T3 with camera mic gain set to 1 click above off, where the MixPre3 output is set to get the X-T3 over -12dB (can actually get closer to say 0dB if you set up the analog limiter and gain on the MixPre3 appropriately- will be impossible to clip the X-T3 level right up to near 0dB). And also record internally with the MixPre3. Post the video with normalized levels (no other changes) and don't tell anyone which version is which and see if anyone can tell. I'll wager most people can't tell, and those that can will need to use really good monitors and/or headphones and the difference will be slight (unless the X-T3 has a fixed high pass filter which obviously cuts the lows).
EDIT: X-T3 without a preamp is pretty noisy. However with a preamp, sounds pretty usable on YouTube (listening on laptop speakers):
Last edited:
puredrifting
Major Contributor
OST 801, Killer mic at a super low price, I think I paid $95.00 for them.
I've got a couple 801s for the G3. When I switched back to the Sennheiser lav, sounded way better (more detailed, clear, etc.); need to listen again, but maybe the 801s will have less rustling issues when Jacqui jumps around.
https://www.pro-sound.com/oscar-soundtech-lavaliers.html
Alvise Tedesco
Well-known member
In FCPX, that magenta blocking is definitely more apparent shooting HLG than log (footage paused in timeline). While, when in play, it remain visible in HLG, but disappears in log footage..
Last edited:
NorBro
Major Contributor
I just wanted to provide a little shout-out to the X-T30.
I had to wait until about 20 minutes ago to try the new 16mm f/2.8 lens with AF and become a Fujifilm AF believer. I knew it was good, but how good?
Video eye-tracking. So amazing. So good.
The 23mm is good too.
---
However, I also tested it with the 56mm a few days ago and was horrified with the results.
I'm just guessing (I have no idea), but you may need a lens with their "stepping motor" for best results, which are currently only the 16mm f/2.8, 23mm f/2 and 35mm f/2...and the 10-24mm, 15-45mm and 55-230mm zooms.
The 16mm f/2.8 is also their newest lens so I'm assuming they will only get better with video AF (33mm f/1 anyone?...oh, I cannot wait). I also do understand it's a wider lens and low-light may vary results, but nevertheless.
For any X-T3 owners who own one of these lenses and/or use AF, I'd write a letter to Fujifilm thanking them for eventually bringing this to your camera!
If you use an ideal lens, it's...wait for it...game changing.
[lol. I don't think I have ever said that before.]
I had to wait until about 20 minutes ago to try the new 16mm f/2.8 lens with AF and become a Fujifilm AF believer. I knew it was good, but how good?
Video eye-tracking. So amazing. So good.
The 23mm is good too.
---
However, I also tested it with the 56mm a few days ago and was horrified with the results.
I'm just guessing (I have no idea), but you may need a lens with their "stepping motor" for best results, which are currently only the 16mm f/2.8, 23mm f/2 and 35mm f/2...and the 10-24mm, 15-45mm and 55-230mm zooms.
The 16mm f/2.8 is also their newest lens so I'm assuming they will only get better with video AF (33mm f/1 anyone?...oh, I cannot wait). I also do understand it's a wider lens and low-light may vary results, but nevertheless.
For any X-T3 owners who own one of these lenses and/or use AF, I'd write a letter to Fujifilm thanking them for eventually bringing this to your camera!
If you use an ideal lens, it's...wait for it...game changing.
[lol. I don't think I have ever said that before.]
marvinhello
Well-known member
I'd say it's a FCPX thing, nothing to do the footage itself.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
If H.265 and not needing to record longer than 10 minute clips aren't factors, the X-T30 is a killer deal! The kit lens is a natural for the X-T30, it's amazingly good for a kit lens.
Good points.
Alvise Tedesco
Well-known member
What is the smaller/lighter decent preamp for occasional 1 or 2 radio lavalier and/or a condenser half shotgun?
Looking for something to mount on the side of a cage more than at bottom of the camera (I'd avoid Tascam DR60 dimensions, so to speak) and I don't need paramount quality at all (I was 99% ok with occasional audio intw with MKE2 on EW100 direct on GH4 mini jack, as long as I lowered GH4 mic level to -11DB).
Apparently this SR-PAX1 from Saramonic can pre-amp and it is light and compact.
Opinions?
Thanks
Looking for something to mount on the side of a cage more than at bottom of the camera (I'd avoid Tascam DR60 dimensions, so to speak) and I don't need paramount quality at all (I was 99% ok with occasional audio intw with MKE2 on EW100 direct on GH4 mini jack, as long as I lowered GH4 mic level to -11DB).
Apparently this SR-PAX1 from Saramonic can pre-amp and it is light and compact.
Opinions?
Thanks
Last edited:
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Centrance Mixerface R4 would be a cool accessory for you. Good quality mic pre-amps, an internal recording model is available, perfect dimensions for your needs. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod..._mixerface_r4_mobile_audio_interface_for.html
Fuji has no "Kit" lenses, they either have good lenses sold as a package, or the budget lenses sold as a package. The budget line are the XC zooms with the plastic mounts.
Somewhere I think there is a video with a Fuji rep saying the above.
And yes I do have both budget zooms, and when working within their budget limits, they are really good lenses. The biggest issue is that they are dark at f3.5 to f5.6. But the images and IS are actually very good. But mostly shoot with the Zeiss Touit primes or old Canon rangefinder primes (because they are fun to use). Really need the Fuji 90 or 80 macro lens for those occasional portraits and things.
So what are people hearing about removing the maximum recording time? Saw it mentioned in another post but haven't really been tracking anything with this camera because I don't want to be tempted to upgrade.
Somewhere I think there is a video with a Fuji rep saying the above.
And yes I do have both budget zooms, and when working within their budget limits, they are really good lenses. The biggest issue is that they are dark at f3.5 to f5.6. But the images and IS are actually very good. But mostly shoot with the Zeiss Touit primes or old Canon rangefinder primes (because they are fun to use). Really need the Fuji 90 or 80 macro lens for those occasional portraits and things.
So what are people hearing about removing the maximum recording time? Saw it mentioned in another post but haven't really been tracking anything with this camera because I don't want to be tempted to upgrade.