bungalowbill
New member
Anybody out there have a recommendation for an on-camera mic for DVX 100A at around $200 or so? I've decided to go with the AT 897 for the boom.
Thanks!
Thanks!
On-camera mic
- Thread starter bungalowbill
- Start date
Dave_Fisk
Well-known member
Re: On-camera mic
I would disagree. I wouldn't use a radio shack mic for anything. Not every single shot will allow you to put the mic 1 foot away from the actors.
For $200 you aren't going to find anything useful. The AT897 was designed for mounting on the camera, so just use that.
-Dave
I would disagree. I wouldn't use a radio shack mic for anything. Not every single shot will allow you to put the mic 1 foot away from the actors.
For $200 you aren't going to find anything useful. The AT897 was designed for mounting on the camera, so just use that.
-Dave
wabbit
Evil has Ears
Re: On-camera mic
Dave,
I don't want us to split hairs (hares...wabbit...comedy gold here people
).
Assume the average distance from camera to subject is 7 or 8 feet. Apply the inverse square law (double distance= -6dB). Between the on camera mic and the 1 foot boom you have 18 dB difference in sound pressure. That is not even taking into account any distance to competeing noice sources or reverb.
You can split those hairs about how often you can get get a mic 1 foot from subject but my post was just making a point that a good mic not properly used is....well a waste of a good mic.
Dave,
I don't want us to split hairs (hares...wabbit...comedy gold here people
).Assume the average distance from camera to subject is 7 or 8 feet. Apply the inverse square law (double distance= -6dB). Between the on camera mic and the 1 foot boom you have 18 dB difference in sound pressure. That is not even taking into account any distance to competeing noice sources or reverb.
You can split those hairs about how often you can get get a mic 1 foot from subject but my post was just making a point that a good mic not properly used is....well a waste of a good mic.
bungalowbill
New member
Re: On-camera mic
I was just thinking about picking up ambient sound with this mic to mix with the boom. No need to be so sarcastic.
I was just thinking about picking up ambient sound with this mic to mix with the boom. No need to be so sarcastic.
wabbit
Evil has Ears
Re: On-camera mic
Didn't mean to sound sarcastic or mean Bungalow. :-X
I haven't used a mic on camera for ambient (some event recording but I use a boom or stand) but in the price range you are asking, the AT4041 is suppose to be a really decent cardioid for the price (around $300 I believe).
Good luck
Didn't mean to sound sarcastic or mean Bungalow. :-X
I haven't used a mic on camera for ambient (some event recording but I use a boom or stand) but in the price range you are asking, the AT4041 is suppose to be a really decent cardioid for the price (around $300 I believe).
Good luck
bungalowbill
New member
Re: On-camera mic
Why is the AT 897 a bad choice for boom? It's definitely been recommended here and on other website forums. What do you think?
Why is the AT 897 a bad choice for boom? It's definitely been recommended here and on other website forums. What do you think?
Re: On-camera mic
becouse it a money compromise mike , i had the apertunity to test it few months ago , this mike is ahudge imprivment over the 815 and the 835 and its sound almost the same as me 66 , but defently dont come close to good shot gun preformers , if you looking for good not expencive mike start with used me -80 ( suprisely sounds better even with 15 years gap) or jump to the used 416 or new or used 4073 , ok they are about twice the 897 in price but this is something that create much plessent sound , esspesially you have to deal with noicy inviermwnt or very low lwvwls in very qwite locations
becouse it a money compromise mike , i had the apertunity to test it few months ago , this mike is ahudge imprivment over the 815 and the 835 and its sound almost the same as me 66 , but defently dont come close to good shot gun preformers , if you looking for good not expencive mike start with used me -80 ( suprisely sounds better even with 15 years gap) or jump to the used 416 or new or used 4073 , ok they are about twice the 897 in price but this is something that create much plessent sound , esspesially you have to deal with noicy inviermwnt or very low lwvwls in very qwite locations
img
Well-known member
Re: On-camera mic
try the rode video mic it is good for the money
.http://www.illusionmediagroup.com/ftp/VideoMic_WitPpr_v1_prnt.pdf
try the rode video mic it is good for the money
.http://www.illusionmediagroup.com/ftp/VideoMic_WitPpr_v1_prnt.pdf
Dave_Fisk
Well-known member
Re: On-camera mic
[quote author=wabbit link=board=audio;num=1106946160;start=0#4 date=01/28/05 at 18:22:21]Dave,
I don't want us to split hairs (hares...wabbit...comedy gold here people ).
Assume the average distance from camera to subject is 7 or 8 feet. Apply the inverse square law (double distance= -6dB). Between the on camera mic and the 1 foot boom you have 18 dB difference in sound pressure. That is not even taking into account any distance to competeing noice sources or reverb.
You can split those hairs about how often you can get get a mic 1 foot from subject but my post was just making a point that a good mic not properly used is....well a waste of a good mic.
[/quote]
Well, splitting hairs is what I do. A crappy radio shack mic will sound like crap no matter where you put it. It's not worth the time and energy....and money.
Don't use a seperate mic to record ambient sounds while you are shooting. Record your wild sound seperately from your production track at a different time when the crew is not around. You will have a much more controlled environment, and can get longer takes of just room tone. I always recommend a seperate recorder for this, but if you have to use the camera, then you have to use the camera. Your sound editor will be happier that way.
-Dave
[quote author=wabbit link=board=audio;num=1106946160;start=0#4 date=01/28/05 at 18:22:21]Dave,
I don't want us to split hairs (hares...wabbit...comedy gold here people
).Assume the average distance from camera to subject is 7 or 8 feet. Apply the inverse square law (double distance= -6dB). Between the on camera mic and the 1 foot boom you have 18 dB difference in sound pressure. That is not even taking into account any distance to competeing noice sources or reverb.
You can split those hairs about how often you can get get a mic 1 foot from subject but my post was just making a point that a good mic not properly used is....well a waste of a good mic.
[/quote]
Well, splitting hairs is what I do. A crappy radio shack mic will sound like crap no matter where you put it. It's not worth the time and energy....and money.
Don't use a seperate mic to record ambient sounds while you are shooting. Record your wild sound seperately from your production track at a different time when the crew is not around. You will have a much more controlled environment, and can get longer takes of just room tone. I always recommend a seperate recorder for this, but if you have to use the camera, then you have to use the camera. Your sound editor will be happier that way.
-Dave
wabbit
Evil has Ears
Re: On-camera mic
[quote author=Dave_Fisk link=board=audio;num=1106946160;start=0#11 date=01/31/05 at 13:08:58]
Well, splitting hairs is what I do. A crappy radio shack mic will sound like crap no matter where you put it. It's not worth the time and energy....and money.
[/quote]
I am not sure if you missed the point or the attempted light-hearted way in which I put it (I guess the sarcasm just doesn't play well in written form).
I am not attempting to tell people to buy radio shack mics instead of buying from, say, coffey sound.
The point was you will get better sound (I am not saying good sound...just better) with a properly placed "cheap" mic than an expensive mic not properly used. You cannot just purchase your way to good sound. You have to actually apply good sound gathering tatics to complete the process.
I don't think this is a controversial point.
[quote author=Dave_Fisk link=board=audio;num=1106946160;start=0#11 date=01/31/05 at 13:08:58]
Well, splitting hairs is what I do. A crappy radio shack mic will sound like crap no matter where you put it. It's not worth the time and energy....and money.
[/quote]
I am not sure if you missed the point or the attempted light-hearted way in which I put it (I guess the sarcasm just doesn't play well in written form).
I am not attempting to tell people to buy radio shack mics instead of buying from, say, coffey sound.
The point was you will get better sound (I am not saying good sound...just better) with a properly placed "cheap" mic than an expensive mic not properly used. You cannot just purchase your way to good sound. You have to actually apply good sound gathering tatics to complete the process.
I don't think this is a controversial point.
Terry_Lasater
All about the Caption
Re: On-camera mic
[quote author=wabbit link=board=audio;num=1106946160;start=0#12 date=01/31/05 at 14:03:51]
The point was you will get better sound (I am not saying good sound...just better) with a properly placed "cheap" mic than an expensive mic not properly used. You cannot just purchase your way to good sound. You have to actually apply good sound gathering tatics to complete the process.
I don't think this is a controversial point.
[/quote]
Excellent point, Wabbit. It wasn't lost on me.
[quote author=wabbit link=board=audio;num=1106946160;start=0#12 date=01/31/05 at 14:03:51]
The point was you will get better sound (I am not saying good sound...just better) with a properly placed "cheap" mic than an expensive mic not properly used. You cannot just purchase your way to good sound. You have to actually apply good sound gathering tatics to complete the process.
I don't think this is a controversial point.
[/quote]
Excellent point, Wabbit. It wasn't lost on me.