Rode video mic pro- "sounds" promising :)

Chadfish said:
roei z, I don't think any mic, no matter how good the suspension, is going to completely eliminate handling noise when mounted on a camera. Even when using a boom pole and professional shock mount, I can still hear when my hand thumps the pole. You have to use your own technique to make sure YOU don't cause handling noise. All any shock mount can do is REDUCE the noise. As for camera noise - I don't know how noisy your camera is, but any noise you put right next to a mic (as is the case when mounting a mic on a camera) will be picked up by the mic. That's why pros don't, as a general rule, plan on mounting the mic on the camera for a shoot. There are exceptions of course. Camera mounting a mic is more for picking up ambiance, or for the rare occasion when the subject is within 2" of the camera. It can be done, but it's not recommended. So if you want to use that method, it's not the mic's fault if the results aren't optimal. It's just physics. Whatever is close to the mic will be picked up. The further the talent is from the mic, the worse it sounds. You must decide how bad of sound you will accept.
Click to expand...

thanks Chadfish, i know it's very problematic. i just though maybe they developed some new genius ways of reducing the noise coming from close around the mic.
figured because they're called shotguns, it might be able to be very precise on the area. :) wishful thinking.
 
You could get a lav or two and put them on the people talking. That would sound better than even the best mic on the camera from a few feet away. I work as a "one man band" often. I use lavs if my subject is moving, or if they are standing/sitting still I'll put a shotgun or hypercardioid on a boom stand right above their heads.
 
if you're at all serious about your narrative films i think you're going to have to follow the good advice here & not use the gh2 & this or any other mic camera mounted, as your recording device for sound. In fact the least you should be considering is xlr connected mics such as rode ntg1/2, at897 & a sound recorder that can handle xlr - this new mic looks good for what it is but its not meant for narrative stuff. Its been said many times, you need to get the mic off camera & preferably in the hands of a skilled audio person....i think if you used this mic on camera you will have a film with really poor sound - such a waste of yours & other peoples time - you owe it to yourself & all the energy you will expend, to somehow find someone to help you out with sound & save up the extra for xlr mic & recorder
 
roei z said:
i believe you're right.. didn't think otherwise. just checking as i'm a sound noob.
Click to expand...

Someone else who was just starting to shoot shorts was posting about buying a mic and a point that I think is valid came up which is If your just starting out you probably should avoid spending a lot of $$$ till you have shot a few little test films. Now I don't know if you have years of shooting or are just starting but if your just getting the feel of shooting then my recommendation is to go with the least complicated choice. None of the DSLR's have built in mics worth the name so I do think you need something, but unless you have made a handful of shorts I would probably say get the video mic and stick it on the camera. Go learn how to make films.

THe order of importance I would put things in is
1) Story/Acting/Direction - it's really hard to pick a winner because all are crutial (and none require any high tech equipment).
2) Visuals/ Sound - and I would give visuals the edge. You will hear a lot of "people will tolerate bad picture but walk out on bad sound".

That is kind of true, but it all depends on how bad the bad is. People will walk out on blurry/ shaky footage (and really that IS the level of bad much indi sound is at).
I saw a quote something like "sound with out picture is radio and picture with out sound is dead air." Actually picture with out sound is a silent movie. I know silent movies were never played silently, but the point is in the movies visuals lead the pack. In a really well made film you can turn off the sound (or picture) and still have a good idea what is going on. You can learn visual story telling with out sound, but sound in film follows picture so if your visual story telling sucks it doesn't matter much if the sound is good.

We tend to push the sound side (as sound people) because traditionally schools have focused exclusively on the visual (with a side step to script) and blown sound off altogether. Way too many indi filmmakers fall into that trap. But I do think you need to start with the visuals. And if your just starting out you need to get that craft down before you add a bunch of complexity into the mix. That goes for CG as well. Learn to shoot a story, then start adding the frosting. You really want specialists to handle those things anyway.
 
thanks for the deep input :)
sure, the direction, story, acting is something i'm familiar and experienced with. but most with "raw", limited and uncontrolled sound. i had soundmen on my other work related, or docu productions, so i know where i stand.
BECAUSE of all those reasons i know that my next narrative project will have to be made with the least human interruption, including soundman.
BUT with decent sound whatsoever.

the only reason i bought the GH2 to begin with is to have at least this project done. it's a very limited tool for a mini feature film project.
i'm learning the limitations as we speak. so now i know where i stand soundwise.

i will spend the 500$ for a basic recorder and good mic (H4N or DR100, with AT785). i might have to get me a soundman to handle this, but i prefer not to.
i can tell you that basically i won't have a lot of dialog, i'll have many indoor environmental moments, some out doors shooting. that's most of the deal.

hope my sound needs look more exact now.. :)
(thanks for all those tips- i greatly appreciate it)
 
When your not doing dialog the sound requirements change a lot. Depending on the shot and your willingness to spend the time in post you could largely skip sound on non dialog scenes. I wouldn't but certainly a camera mounted mic will be good enough for a guide track. I would work at getting the mic in close on the dialog though and that will be easier with a sound person.

Non english films tend to be less dialog centric. When you don't need to cover a lot of dialog it can really free up the visual style.
 
thanks. personally i didn't think the in camera sound recording would provide enough quality anyway. but it's WAY more easier.
i also think that even in non dialog scenes, there have to be decent sound to capture characters gestures, body movements, etc.
 
THat depends on post. On a big film all of that is replaced in post. Personally I would argue that to a great extent that should be done in low budget also. You will have a better film if you focus on visually shooting it correctly (for your vision) and then focus on making it sound the way you want it to than trying to get both at the same time.

Dialog is an exception because performance is SO important.

As a general rule IF I have the time I always replace the production sound for everything but dialog.

I can make you the RIGHT door close or drawer close etc. The production sound is always compromised.

When I am in before the shooting my first thing to the director is DO NOT try to get production FX. I can give you better than you will get on the set, always.

roei z said:
thanks. personally i didn't think the in camera sound recording would provide enough quality anyway. but it's WAY more easier.
i also think that even in non dialog scenes, there have to be decent sound to capture characters gestures, body movements, etc.
Click to expand...
 
i agree on most situations.
but what about a close up shot, when the actor moves around inside a house, breathing, moving, lips gestures etc.. would that also count as post work for you?
don't you consider those situations as real time performance acting ?

BTW- sorry for bringing this chewed subject here, but i need help on choosing H4N or DR100 in my case.
if there's no way of recording more than 2 tracks on the DR100 it's no good for me right? (for recording 2 more ambiance tracks with the internal mics)
am i thinking correctly or wrong about my workflow ?
 
Last edited:
You typically don't need four channels of audio to capture the sounds of a close up shot, especially if two of the channels are coming from built-in microphones on a recorder that isn't close to the action. The four channel recording function on the H4n makes more sense for recording live music. For location audio for narrative film making, not so much.
 
but isn't it better to add an ambiance source to be recorded simultaneously ?

BTW- i can get the AT785 at a good price here in Israel..
but you said the H4N doesn't like it much (weak pre-amps?)
so getting the DR100 would be a better option in this case?
 
Last edited:
roei z said:
but isn't it better to add an ambiance source to be recorded simultaneously ?
Click to expand...

no, you want to add in the "room tone" in post.

while on set, at some point, usually after a scene has been shot and are about to wrap you silence everyone up for as long as possibly. 60 seconds is a good time frame and you record the room tone.

so many short/amateur films are plagued by not having any room tone. its one of the simplest things to get right but yet so many don't do it. go to a screening of a 48 hour film fest, its a nightmare from a sound standpoint.
 
I said that I had heard that the Rode NTG2 and the H4n have some compatibility issues. I'm not 100% sure about this, I've just read about it.

Typically you record the ambiance separately from recording dialog & non-dialog shots, not at the same time. It's called "room tone" and "atmos." You don't do it at the same time because when you're shooting you need to focus on performances. Then between takes, you record 30 seconds or a minute of room tone.

The AT875 requires phantom power to operate, which may quickly drain the batteries on the H4n (I've read that phantom drains batteries on the H4n). Not sure if the DR100 has the same issue with phantom battery drain.

I think the H4n has better sounding internal mics, so I would probably buy it based on that fact alone. Hear it for yourself here:

http://www.wingfieldaudio.com/portable-recorder-noise.html#samples

Perhaps you should see if you can get a deal on an AT897 (a used one maybe?). It's a nice sounding mic, and it can run on an AA battery so you wouldn't have to drain the battery of the H4n when you use it.

This thread is pretty much hopelessly derailed at this point.

Anyhow, the Movember footage I posted earlier by Philip Bloom was likely shot without using the +20dB function on the VideoMic Pro. That's why it doesn't sound radically different than other on-camera mics in that video. It's forgivable, Philip is a DP by trade after all. It's a miracle he uses external microphones at all ;)
 
roei z said:
very interesting. i know about the balanced XLR safer route, that's why i asked.
i still what to review all my option considering i really prefer to work without a soundman.
but it seems almost impossible, unless i mount it on camera and risking quality.
Click to expand...
If u have decided which way to go, can you shed me some light?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top