New On-Camera Mic Advice

[Tony Robinson]

I recently shot an independent feature with the Sony FS100 and found myself needing to use some of the "camera sound" to fill in ambient, footsteps, etc when using lav mics on the talent. Thankfully my "camera sound" didn't sound too bad since I was using the FS100 with included shotgun mic. However, it was a learning experience and I found myself thinking it would be nice to have a better quality solution for on-camera sound in the future.

I shoot with the FS100, 5D Mark II, and BMPCC.

I've been looking at the Rode Stereo VideoMic Pro. I've heard some great things about it. However, I'd like some advice.

Any suggestions for a kit $300 or less? Is the Stereo VideoMic Pro not "shotgun" enough for what I'm thinking? I want to really only pick up the sound the camera is pointing at. I don't want pure wide ambience. Should I go with more of a traditional shotgun?

The 5D and BMPCC both have the 3.5mm inputs. However, how would you suggest connecting the stereo mic's 3.5mm connection to the FS100's two XLR inputs?

Thanks for any advice!

 

[Noiz2]

I recently shot an independent feature with the Sony FS100 and found myself needing to use some of the "camera sound" to fill in ambient, footsteps, etc when using lav mics on the talent.

??? Sound post ???

Obviously nobody did any sound editing, that is actually the solution for your problem not a better mic for the camera.

 

[Alex H.]

I recently shot an independent feature with the Sony FS100 and found myself needing to use some of the "camera sound" to fill in ambient, footsteps, etc when using lav mics on the talent.

These are sounds that should all be replaced in post through FX and Foley. An on-camera mic is NEVER a good solution for narrative. It can be passable, even modestly "okay," for ENG and documentary, but not at all for narrative.

Is the Stereo VideoMic Pro not "shotgun" enough for what I'm thinking? I want to really only pick up the sound the camera is pointing at. I don't want pure wide ambience. Should I go with more of a traditional shotgun?

"Shotgun" is not a term that applies to any mic that mounts to a camera. It has to do with design and angle of rejection. The Stereo VideoMic Pro is not a shotgun. It is an XY stereo mic (two cardioid mic elements in a single housing). Stereo mics will pick up a very wide image, where a true shotgun will reject most sound to the sides and rear.

On-camera is rarely an acceptable place for a mic. It won't get close enough to the actors to record clean production sound, it is pointed straight from the camera and will thus pick up all the background sounds behind the subject, and on-camera mics are generally going to pick up the sounds of the camera and camera operator.

The 5D and BMPCC both have the 3.5mm inputs. However, how would you suggest connecting the stereo mic's 3.5mm connection to the FS100's two XLR inputs?

Always get the right tool for the right job. Having a good mic on-camera will do you one big favor, which is to get better reference sound for easier matching of your video files with your audio files in post. There is an adapter to convert something like the RØDE VideoMic Pro (not the stereo version, but the shotgun) to XLR. Or, you could get a shotgun with XLR output and an XLR converter for your 5D and BMPCC.

But again, there's not much use for an on-camera mic, especially for narrative.

 

[DPStewart]

Ok, even though I am a super nit-picky audio nazi at times.....I actually agree with what Tony is after.
there have been several instances where the ambient recording provided by the on-camera mics was extremely good and provided perfect quality and realism for the scene. But I WAS using a $5,000 Canon ENG style shoulder cam which had really good mics in it.

I have also used my Audio Technical AT 835ST to do exactly what Tony did. The shoots did not allow for any more resources beyond a boom on the talent and whatever was on my camera. If that's where you're stuck, then that is where you're stuck.
now granted, that's a $700 mic that really does exactly what Tony was after - a directional capture of what the camera was looking at.

I don't know if that cheaper and smaller Rode stereo mic in question will actually deliver that.

Another reason FOR doing this is audio realism. If the sound that occurs at you scene is good sound, then even capturing it from 10 or 15 feet away will "often" be quite good. But if the real sounds are crap....then you'll have a fantastic recording of crap.

I do NOT like a lot of Foley that is recorded on a stage because frequently it is mic'd too closely, resulting in an unnatural sound. If the camera has a long shot of people walking and the Foley was mic'd from 2 or 3 feet away it is going to have a sound that simply does not match the image without significant mix adjustments. More work, more work, more work.

Tony's point is something I consider both valid and important. Yes, it's your last choice, but he already conceded that.
FIRST comes your boom on the talent.
second comes a stereo mic in the hands of the sound person gathering all practical audio.
third comes the on-camera mic as a backup for less than desirable circumstances.
but if you simply don't have the second mic, then a good stereo mic on the camera really is often a very usable solution.
(unless the mic is crap. In which case forget everything I said!)

 

[Alex H.]

Another reason FOR doing this is audio realism. If the sound that occurs at you scene is good sound, then even capturing it from 10 or 15 feet away will "often" be quite good. But if the real sounds are crap....then you'll have a fantastic recording of crap.

Very lottle of what you hear in motion picture (dialog notwithstanding) is the actual sound that was recorded in production. In fact, much of what Foley artists do is to create those sounds by using other items to make the sound better, and often layering sounds of several sources to create one "sound" in the mix. For the movies "realism" actually means "larger than life" to sell the image to the viewer.

I do NOT like a lot of Foley that is recorded on a stage because frequently it is mic'd too closely, resulting in an unnatural sound. If the camera has a long shot of people walking and the Foley was mic'd from 2 or 3 feet away it is going to have a sound that simply does not match the image without significant mix adjustments. More work, more work, more work.

Foley is recorded dry, as are pre-recorded sound effects. And yes, it requires post-production audio processing to sell the image. This is where delays and convolution reverbs come in handy, along with EQ, to make something sound distant. If you have it already recorded with a distant, reverberant sound, you have absolutely no control of how distant or how reverberant.

Yes, it's more work, but nobody said filmmaking was easy.

 

[Richard Crowley]

DPStewart's response seems to be reflective of the kind of "dumbing down" of audio quality which seems inevitable with the advent of the "queasy-cam" technique made popular by MTV. It has become far more common (and "acceptable" to indiscriminate audiences) to hear the kind of reverberant, "off-mic" sound we get from camera-mounted mics.

 

[DPStewart]

DPStewart's response seems to be reflective of the kind of "dumbing down" of audio quality which seems inevitable with the advent of the "queasy-cam" technique made popular by MTV. It has become far more common (and "acceptable" to indiscriminate audiences) to hear the kind of reverberant, "off-mic" sound we get from camera-mounted mics.

Absolutely NOT.
As I said at the top of my post I am super nit-picky about audio.
(I became a voting member of NARAS as an audio engineer in 1985. I do have a bit of familiarity with high quality audio.)

I tried to be very clear, but maybe I wasn't clear enough when I said Boom and dedicated Practical come first.

And we can also get real clear that we are definitely NOT talking about productions with serious realistic budgets.

Let's address the conditions of the person who started this line of inquiry.
Look at his camera list and the equipment he asked about. This is low budget stuff. Like I said right away "If that's where you're stuck, then that is where you're stuck."

Also, the microphone technology of today is vastly superior at the sub-$1,000 price point than it was 20 years ago.
I also tried to make it clear that a great recording of bad sounds still hurts the product.

With both those Canon onboard mic's and the AT835 I have - the practical that was captured was both good quality and was appropriate for the scenes.

If you are talking about people using onboard mic's for the actual dialog, or worse yet - EVERYTHING, then I'd ask you to re-read my post again.

 

[Tony Robinson]

Lots of responses happening here! I never thought it would turn into this, but it's gotten interesting!

I feel like I should clarify here or at least expand.

One of the things the organization I work for produces is low budget independent films. I'm in charge of everything from my position as DP all the way through final post production. I am the editor and the sound editor. When foley needs done, I do it. However, my time is VERY limited.

On our films we record audio in a variety of ways. Our main course is a Rode NTG3 on a boom pole. On interiors, we switch to a Rode NT3. We also use two Sennheiser wireless lav kits. All these mics are recorded into an Edirol R-44 at 24/96. We get good, high quality sound. In no way was I suggesting to record dialog or primary sound with an on-camera mic.

However, there were a few instances where I was on on steadicam and we did an extended "walk and talk" where the dialog would break with some extended walking. The lavs got a little fuzzy and obviously weren't picking up footsteps very well anyway. Yes, in sound editing I could have replaced all the footsteps using foley. However, I pulled the FS100 camera sound recorded with its (average) quality shotgun and with a little tweaking, it sounded great (I couldn't even hear my own footsteps). It would have been a complete waste of time for me NOT to use.

I just finished sound editing for our latest film and realized I used this technique three or four times. So I was curious how I could improve the quality of my on-camera sound in the future.

I was intrigued by the Rode VideoMic Pro, but if it doesn't have a more shotgun style direct pattern, I'm not sure it is best for what I'm thinking. The newly announced Rode NTG4+ has me intrigued.

 

[Richard Crowley]

Absolutely NOT.
As I said at the top of my post I am super nit-picky about audio. .

Sorry, I didn't mean to implicate you personally.
It was more a general rant about the declining quality of audio in general.

 

[Ed Jeffersen]

Stereo X/Y mics usually have a bit of a hole in the middle. Does it need to be stereo? If not, the Rode Video Mic Pro (the mono shotgun one) might work for you. Cost is $200 or so and you will want the fur cover for it. Rode also sells an inexpensive adaptor to go from 1/8" to XLR.
There is such a thing as "directional" stereo mic, but they are expensive. Also a mid/side set up will allow adjustment for the width of the stereo field, but again more expensive and requires further processing in post.
You could convert your stereo recordings to dual mono channels and then pan them slightly left/right from center for a narower stereo image.

Panasonic sells a mic for their GH3 and GH4 that combines stereo and shotgun mics with the ability to adjust the spread. Unfortunately it only works with those cameras.

 

[DPStewart]

Well, the AT 835 ST that I have will do it. But let's see what we can find for about half the price.

If an external stereo mic cannot be found for $300 or less that's really giving better results than what's on your camera then let's think about a small compromise - if you get a mono shotgun mic like the AT897 (I have this one too) for about $240 you'll get your sound, but it will just be mono.
ways to make that work:
1. Drop stereo ambience tracks over it and you'll end up with a very good sense of a stereo field. Footsteps and things the actors touch and do generally create a relatively mono sound source anyway.
2. When ever possible, pan mono clips a little bit to match the screen - gives a sense of proper stereo.
3. Do both.

Any mic that is a stereo directional or shotgun from a maker like Rode, AT, Sennheiser, Shure, is very likely to give you better performance than your onboard mic.

EDIT: OK, I looked. There doesn't seem to even be anything else out there for under $700 that's stereo except that Rode Video Mic Pro, and that may be too "omni" for what you need it for.

Yeah, get a good shotgun. The AT 897, the Sennheiser M600, and any Shure, Sony, or Rode that hits that price point.
I listened to them all and personally preferred the AT897.

 

[Noiz2]

I will chime in on a few things.

First the term Foley is being miss used a lot in this thread. Sound FX are not Foley, Foley is a very specific process and is not used for most sounds.

IF you can shoot films and sell them and have steady cams etc, and you are not budgeting for sound... Don't know what to say but it's a bit like dumpster diving to get the food to cook for the girl you are trying to marry.

I looked at some of the films linked and they had a budget, maybe not a very big one but they had one. So deciding not to do a decent job on sound is, well kind of inexcusable.

Also Foley is not always recorded completely dry, it is actually often recorded with an attempt to match space and perspective. And in general it doesn't stand out. You haven't heard a footstep on a major film in your lifetime that was production sound in all likelihood. None of the door sounds or keys on the belt or sitting on the chair were from production either but were probably SFX, not Foley. On a typical med/ small (as in $30 mill or so) film there might be only a week budgeted for Foley. The SFX team will be on for a significantly longer time, often multiple months. It is a safe assumption to make that nothing but dialog came from production on any film with a $30 million+ budget. On really low budget films, as in under $100,000 it varies depending on how smart the producers are. I have worked on many that did a full sound post, and it makes a HUGE difference.

And while it's generally true that "real" in film is bigger than life it is more true that the "real" sound took place on a set and not in the world of the film and there for is not "real" in a narrative film.

Doc. ENG, that is a different story, what you are shooting is "real" in that context, but never in narrative films. Will it get by??? maybe. On a low budget you almost have to use some of the production FX since you often can't get rid of them. Big budget films go to great lengths to eliminate on set sounds so it's actually a lot easier to clean up. TV generally doesn't have the time, which is a different issue, and they will use more production FX than a film will.