Hey guys, I have a project coming up that I need to record someone standing on oysterbeds and talking about, well, oyster health. Anyway, I don't have access to a wireless system and have had problems with them on occasion anyway. I was thinking I could plug my wired XLR lavalier directly into my Marantz PMD 661 and hook the field recorder itself directly to the talents back, underneath their fleece jacket. I would also have my Sennheiser 416 shotgun as close as I can get the blimp to them. The problem is that I wont be able to monitor the sound except between takes. I think it seems like a good idea, just wanted some feedback in case there is something I could be overlooking. Thanks. -Richard
No wireless, hide field recorder?
- Thread starter Richard J
- Start date
If you can't monitor the audio as it is recorded, then I don't know how good of an idea it is. If you do it the way you described, you are going to have to listen to each take all the way through to make sure it is ok, effectively doubling the amount of time for your shoot. You are probably better off renting a wireless system.
John Willett
Veteran
I'm with Dave on this one.
Hiring a radiomic. system would really be the best option.
And if he falls over, it's the hired item that gets wet. :happy:
Hiring a radiomic. system would really be the best option.
And if he falls over, it's the hired item that gets wet. :happy:
Thanks for the input gentleman. Time is not going to be that much of an issue as it's a short shoot. I really don't mind monitoring between takes for this one. I just ran some tests with that setup and was perfectly happy with the results. I think the key is going to be mike placement/wind protection. I was worried about not running through a mixer but the signal is relatively clean as is with my test. I set the recorder in dual mono mode and set one channel slightly hotter than the other so I can keep the gain relatively high but not worry about clipping the hot channel b/c of the backup. I'll obviously have to check the audio between takes but I think this may be a good solution, and I don't have to worry about potential problems with wireless. I also was pleased that I have a key lock option so I don't have to worry about accidentally pushing buttons with it strapped to my back under my jacket. I wish I could use the limiter from my mixer (not a fan of electronic limiters) but with the dual mono trick hopefully it won't cause any retakes. Has anyone done this before and do they have any tips?
Famous last words. You're really tempting fate here.
Sure... in a predictable and controlled environment. Once you get out to the oyster beds, it's completely up to chance and circumstance.
Well, those are important no matter what. You said you'll also have your 416 boomed on the talent... running into what? Why not just boom the whole thing? If you have that option, it's going to be your best bet over a lav any day... unless you're shooting really, really wide.
The size of the PMD 661 makes it very clumsy for trying to hide on a person. That's bound to be very uncomfortable for your talent, and as has been mentioned pretty risky for a fall into the water. The inability to monitor during recording is a major setback, and something I would never risk with my sound.
David W. Jones
Veteran
My tip... Follow the advice of John & Dave!
Hey guys, thanks for all the really insightful info. Posting this thread, I was asking if there was something I could be overlooking before going out using this method. I was not overlooking the inability to actively monitor the audio signal as it's recorded. I noted in the original post that I would have to monitor it between takes. I'm fine with that.
"Well, those are important no matter what. You said you'll also have your 416 boomed on the talent... running into what? Why not just boom the whole thing? If you have that option, it's going to be your best bet over a lav any day..."
The boom mic will be run into the mixer, then to the camera. Yeah, that will be my "best bet" as you say but I always like having a lav/boom combination when possible. For me, my budget (shoestring) and the circumstances (short shoot easily monitored between takes) I thought I might could get away with running the lav hardwired into the recorder. Part of the "test" I ran was to see if the recorder could be hidden and yeah, it's not that much bigger than a lectro transmitter I've used before and it will be under a fleece jacket.
"Famous last words. You're really tempting fate here."
So you're saying a ten minute shoot could turn into a 30 minute shoot... Not that worried about it on this one, fate and all. I mentioned in my original post that I would have to monitor between takes with this method as the major drawback would be not being able to monitor during the shooting.
"Sure... in a predictable and controlled environment. Once you get out to the oyster beds, it's completely up to chance and circumstance."
How do you know the environment I ran my tests in? I ran the tests in as similar a situation as I could. One of the things my test proved is that a key variable out on the marsh will be the wind. Sometimes it's calm, sometimes (like last night when I ran the test) it can be a little breezy. If it's too windy I'd obviously reschedule the shoot but as long as I have my dead cat on the blimp and good mic placement/wind protection on the lav I can still get quality results.
I know it's always easier to advise renting expensive equipment but I'm trying to be creative on a shoestring budget. I never once, even when I started this thread, said that I would go home without hearing the audio that had been recorded. With this method I will be able to monitor it while getting everything set up and right before "action" pull out the headphones and start shooting. Between takes I will still have the opportunity to monitor the recorded audio for any imperfections.
I really was curious if there was anything I could be overlooking that would be helpful to me. On a side note, one of the benefits to these threads is the difference in techniques people use. I would wager that there are people on here shooting film that don't get to monitor their actual footage until weeks later. They may rely on experience and making sure to the best of their ability the camera is recording properly. I have about decided, after my test, to shoot this way and see how it turns out. It may end up throwing off the flow of the shoot, or it may end up being nice for the talent to have a couple minutes in between takes to go over their lines. Thanks again, and I'll be sure to get back after the shoot. Y'all may get to say "I told you so" or we may have a new technique for people in tight spots (low budgets or even wireless gear acting up). Thanks again, Richard
"Well, those are important no matter what. You said you'll also have your 416 boomed on the talent... running into what? Why not just boom the whole thing? If you have that option, it's going to be your best bet over a lav any day..."
The boom mic will be run into the mixer, then to the camera. Yeah, that will be my "best bet" as you say but I always like having a lav/boom combination when possible. For me, my budget (shoestring) and the circumstances (short shoot easily monitored between takes) I thought I might could get away with running the lav hardwired into the recorder. Part of the "test" I ran was to see if the recorder could be hidden and yeah, it's not that much bigger than a lectro transmitter I've used before and it will be under a fleece jacket.
"Famous last words. You're really tempting fate here."
So you're saying a ten minute shoot could turn into a 30 minute shoot... Not that worried about it on this one, fate and all. I mentioned in my original post that I would have to monitor between takes with this method as the major drawback would be not being able to monitor during the shooting.
"Sure... in a predictable and controlled environment. Once you get out to the oyster beds, it's completely up to chance and circumstance."
How do you know the environment I ran my tests in? I ran the tests in as similar a situation as I could. One of the things my test proved is that a key variable out on the marsh will be the wind. Sometimes it's calm, sometimes (like last night when I ran the test) it can be a little breezy. If it's too windy I'd obviously reschedule the shoot but as long as I have my dead cat on the blimp and good mic placement/wind protection on the lav I can still get quality results.
I know it's always easier to advise renting expensive equipment but I'm trying to be creative on a shoestring budget. I never once, even when I started this thread, said that I would go home without hearing the audio that had been recorded. With this method I will be able to monitor it while getting everything set up and right before "action" pull out the headphones and start shooting. Between takes I will still have the opportunity to monitor the recorded audio for any imperfections.
I really was curious if there was anything I could be overlooking that would be helpful to me. On a side note, one of the benefits to these threads is the difference in techniques people use. I would wager that there are people on here shooting film that don't get to monitor their actual footage until weeks later. They may rely on experience and making sure to the best of their ability the camera is recording properly. I have about decided, after my test, to shoot this way and see how it turns out. It may end up throwing off the flow of the shoot, or it may end up being nice for the talent to have a couple minutes in between takes to go over their lines. Thanks again, and I'll be sure to get back after the shoot. Y'all may get to say "I told you so" or we may have a new technique for people in tight spots (low budgets or even wireless gear acting up). Thanks again, Richard
Captain Pierce
Veteran
Yeah, they're the ones asking for the magic plug-in to fix their horrible audio... :happy:
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
This is very true. And nobody with any sense shoots a film where they can't monitor the sound.
That said I consulted with a friend where we did something like what you are talking about. It was a guy on a kayak paddling around the SF bay and talking about the bay and rising water levels. The only way they could have done it wireless was with a chase boat and this was a radio doc so no budget for that. But they were willing to do a real test and re do it if nec. Plus it's a doc and radio so a lot was going in the scrap heap anyway. They ended up using an Olympus recorder and a pair of wired lav mics I picked up at Radio Shack many years ago. We clipped them to the bill of his baseball cap (radio remember). Aimed at his mouth and put on some heavy duty furry wind protection. It worked quite well.
I wouldn't recommend it as a regular practice but it's not nec. a disaster.
You can hear the finished productions here RISE
BTW the cheap ass RS lavs were tested against a nice pair that cost about 10X as much and were chosen because they worked the best in this situation. They don't have much bottom so it helped with wind and their particular response pattern worked for the guys voice. The lesson is not that you can buy cheap crap and get away with it it's that if you know what your doing and look carefully and LISTEN you can get some good bargains every once in awhile. I bought them as disposables for a FX gig and they turned out to quite decent. I have used them to steal ambiences that have been used in numerous features (med Hollywood budget features) and quite a few national ads.
Steve House
Veteran
Monitoring means listening as its recorded, not reviewing the audio later. That's the definition of "monitor." People shooting film didn't have to wait weeks to review their audio - they did it just like pro video shooters do today. Where did you get the idea it took weeks to get the sound in a listenable form after collecting it on the set? ilm cameras do not record audio in camera - there were a few film news cameras marketed in the 40's and 50's that did record to a magnetic stripe on the film but they were rare. Film records sound to a separate recorder, back in the day a reel-to-reel tape, then later digital DAT tape, and now file-based recorders identical to those used for double system video recording. Monitoring was done at the time of recording by the sound person operating the mixer or recorder, just like everyone here is suggesting you do as well on this shoot.
Was your lecture really productive Steve? I was not referring to audio when I made that remark about film. I was making a simple point that people shooting film, aka 16mm or 35mm, have to wait for the negatives to be developed to be sure of how their footage came out.
As for your semantics about monitoring... I use my active monitor speakers to review my audio after the shoot at my home office and use my broadcast monitor to view my video footage after it's been shot. Maybe there's a dictionary somewhere that refers to monitoring as real time specific but not mine and once again, was it really worth you ranting about?
My question I posted in the first place was if I am going to go this route is there a problem with this workflow besides the fact that I have the time consuming aspect of monitoring, excuse me, reviewing the audio between takes. So far, it seems like that and the bulk of the recorder itself is the only drawback people see, and like I've said all along, that's fine with me. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't overlooked anything. Thanks, and once again, I'll report back after the shoot. And thanks for the condescending explanation of how audio was recorded in film days. Made me chuckle. Cheers.
As for your semantics about monitoring... I use my active monitor speakers to review my audio after the shoot at my home office and use my broadcast monitor to view my video footage after it's been shot. Maybe there's a dictionary somewhere that refers to monitoring as real time specific but not mine and once again, was it really worth you ranting about?
My question I posted in the first place was if I am going to go this route is there a problem with this workflow besides the fact that I have the time consuming aspect of monitoring, excuse me, reviewing the audio between takes. So far, it seems like that and the bulk of the recorder itself is the only drawback people see, and like I've said all along, that's fine with me. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't overlooked anything. Thanks, and once again, I'll report back after the shoot. And thanks for the condescending explanation of how audio was recorded in film days. Made me chuckle. Cheers.
Sorry guys, regretting that post now. I don't have near the experience many on this forum do and that's why I came here seeking advice in the first place. I was looking to use a makeshift workflow that I knew wasn't ideal but thought might could work and save me a few bucks. By the overwhelming response to rent wireless (by people who have no reason to advise me other than to help me based on their experience) I'm going to look into seeing if I can budget a good wireless lav. I hate it when forums get off the topic of being helpful and digress to being persnickety and belittling. Thanks for all your input, you probably just saved me a lot of headache in post. -Richard
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
I know you apologized for the tone so I'm not reacting to that. But the way sound was recorded in "film days" is pretty much how it is still recorded. And with DSLR's flooding the low budget world it's how low budget shoots also now.
On a big film the dailies are around a day or two behind the shooting schedule, not weeks. And terminology actually becomes important in a complicated field. So watching a monitor does not constitute "monitoring" a shoot. It's listening with headphones while the shot is happening. Monitoring the picture would be watching in real time while the shot is happening also. Just like radiation monitoring devices react in real time, since a few weeks later is kind of pointless.
As I said earlier what you want to do is possible but it's a gamble. IF that gamble is a good one is your call. For most people most of the time it won't be a good gamble but it might be for you.
manglerBMX
Veteran
you can rent a sennheiser wireless for like $35/day….
Greg Smith
Veteran
Not to distract from your main point, but "single system" sound in 16mm and later super 8 formats was hardly rare and definitely did not die out in the '50s; it was the standard for television newsgathering for about 25 years after that. Up until the ENG revolution of the mid to late 1970s, when videotape replaced film in short order, every television station had a fleet of Bach Auricon and later Cinema Products CP-16 cameras that were the standard tools for news teams in the field and local commercial production. The leading station in our little mid-market (#64) town had ten or twelve of them. According to an ad I once read from the company, there were more CP-16s built than any other 16mm camera in history, most of them equipped with recording heads and amplifiers for sound-on-film use. The quality was mediocre (the film has to start and stop to be exposed, but must move smoothly past the sound head a couple of inches away, which led to a lot of flutter, and the stiff film stock didn't allow the sound stripe to contact the recording heads as intimately as more flexible tape could), but OK for interviews and background audio.
- Greg
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
Richard I was talking about your response where you say that watching a monitor days after a shoot constitutes "monitoring". That isn't the case.
Sound has always been monitored because humans are much more visually oriented. You tend to see everything but only hear what you want. Plus as you pointed out it was impossible to see the results instantly till recently.
But actually listening while recording is really more related to looking through the eye piece when filming. Very few people listen to what is recorded, they listen to what is sent to the recorder. There is a lag time in "safety monitoring" that makes it hard to listen to if your anywhere close to the action. Just as the DP is looking at what is going to his recorder. So in reality picture has always "monitored" what they were shooting. The difference was that sound could playback to check that all was going well much sooner than picture.
A minor point but we are still in "film days". Five years from now you may well be able to speak of film in the past tense but at the moment it is still the release format and most of what is shot (on the films most people see). Most TV would probably be shot on film also if SAG hadn't gotten pissy and chased them all to video so they could deal with AFTRA instead.
Sound has always been monitored because humans are much more visually oriented. You tend to see everything but only hear what you want. Plus as you pointed out it was impossible to see the results instantly till recently.
But actually listening while recording is really more related to looking through the eye piece when filming. Very few people listen to what is recorded, they listen to what is sent to the recorder. There is a lag time in "safety monitoring" that makes it hard to listen to if your anywhere close to the action. Just as the DP is looking at what is going to his recorder. So in reality picture has always "monitored" what they were shooting. The difference was that sound could playback to check that all was going well much sooner than picture.
A minor point but we are still in "film days". Five years from now you may well be able to speak of film in the past tense but at the moment it is still the release format and most of what is shot (on the films most people see). Most TV would probably be shot on film also if SAG hadn't gotten pissy and chased them all to video so they could deal with AFTRA instead.
I have read this thread, but more in a "diagonaly" way... So if I say something which has already been said... I justed wanted to mention it too.
My big "concern" is that if the "recorder behind the talent with the lav" would work now, you might think "oooh ok, nice..it works, so this will work ALL the time".
And that would be a big mistake.
It seems that now you have time to listen to each take... So when it's bad you're going to do it again ? Well you don't always have that time.
If this project is the only one you're going to do in your life, well I would say... do what you think is the best.
If your planning to do more, invest, buy stuff, or rent stuff... And you can easely ask more money then... Don't think "I'm going to save 20$ by not renting and doing it the "difficult" way".
If you deliver bad sound (bad sound is more worse then bad picture), the client will go somewhere else... so at the end, you'll loose clients.
And also, as you said you're on the part of the forum where you only find crazy sound people... Who have (some a lot) experience with sound and know what's best and what not.
It feels a bit like that someone would ask to an electrician if the way he would connect cables is a good way... And as soon the electrician answers "no, do it this way" that the other guy tries to stay with his thoughts and how he wanted to do it the first time.
My big "concern" is that if the "recorder behind the talent with the lav" would work now, you might think "oooh ok, nice..it works, so this will work ALL the time".
And that would be a big mistake.
It seems that now you have time to listen to each take... So when it's bad you're going to do it again ? Well you don't always have that time.
If this project is the only one you're going to do in your life, well I would say... do what you think is the best.
If your planning to do more, invest, buy stuff, or rent stuff... And you can easely ask more money then... Don't think "I'm going to save 20$ by not renting and doing it the "difficult" way".
If you deliver bad sound (bad sound is more worse then bad picture), the client will go somewhere else... so at the end, you'll loose clients.
And also, as you said you're on the part of the forum where you only find crazy sound people... Who have (some a lot) experience with sound and know what's best and what not.
It feels a bit like that someone would ask to an electrician if the way he would connect cables is a good way... And as soon the electrician answers "no, do it this way" that the other guy tries to stay with his thoughts and how he wanted to do it the first time.