Seeking tiny self-powered shotgun or faux shotgun

N

nothing

Carbonite Member
I need a tiny directional microphone for a gimballed VR180 setup using dual Z Camera E1s with ultra-wide fisheye lenses. Something like the Rode VideoMicro would be perfect, but these cameras do not provide the plug-in power that it requires. Is there anything similarly tiny that has a battery? It needs to be really really small, as the 185 degree FOV lenses in use here will see anything that protrudes past the camera body - I need something 4 inches or smaller.

Before this thread turns into a list of reasons that on-camera mics don't work well, or a discussion of why tiny mics aren't true shotguns or how crappy the preamps in these cameras are - please save it :) I know this will be worthless for dialog and many other kinds of audio, and I will always have lavs on anybody speaking - but this unique camera situation has unique audio capture needs and the built-in camera mics are nowhere near sufficient.
 
The original VMP from Rode used a battery, I bet some of the knock offs do also. The one I use is too long, according to your post. Since you are SO wide do you really want a directional mic? RadioShack (RIP?) used to sell a pair of omni lavs that were powered, or could be. I used them a couple of times pointing 180 degrees apart (just reversed one in the dual clip it came with) for some Ambience recordings where stealth mattered more than fidelity. They were OK and cheap and certainly fit your size needs.
THIS THING looks to be similar.
 
Noiz2 said:
Since you are SO wide do you really want a directional mic?
Click to expand...

Yeah, even though half the world is captured, the subject of interest will always be center frame.

I have the battery-powered AT lav, but the cord is wayyyy too long anyway - hoping for a more tidy package.

I already have the battery-powered Takstar VideoMic knockoff as well, and it is definitely too big :(

Thanks for all the help everybody :)
 
Here are a couple of different ways of looking at the problem...

This is a mini pre-amp that can supply 1.5v plug-in power to the smallest non-battery mic you have, and, hey, it's a pre-amp too. But it's USB-powered so you'd need to bring along a USB battery bank to plug the pre-amp into.
https://makerhart.com/product_d.php?lang=en&tb=1&id=7

This is a micro mixer from the same company, and says it can supply mic power. Looks like it's smaller than a smartphone. Might be interesting if you wanted to have backup audio, that way you could run your lavaliere and also the Rode VideoMicro at the same time and have two channels. No internal battery, needs USB power so you'd need a USB power bank in the field.
https://makerhart.com/product_d.php?lang=en&tb=1&id=4

I don't know if something like this will work for you, if they can be mounted on the tripod and stay out of the field of view or whatever. Just thought there might be some chance there'd be something useful here.
Note that I've never used or even heard of these products before, so they may be horrible, I have no idea. Just what I found in googling.
 
Hmm, those Makerhart products might not work if they only output 1.5v, the VideoMicro says it requires 3V.

Another possible idea: if you have something like a Zoom or other XLR recorder, perhaps you could use something like this:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod..._microphones_dxlr_d_xlr_locking_3_5mm_to.html

It outputs 3V. That'd let you plug your Video Micro into an XLR port which could then be phantom powered from an external recorder. Then you could presumably route the output of the Zoom into the mic input of the camera?
 
nothing said:
Thanks Barry, one of these options might work - I'll check them all out :)
Click to expand...

I thought I would note something.

The OP posted what he was looking for and why and the constraints AND that he knew the limitations of those requirements, And he has only gotten helpful comments and nobody has told him he needs to go spend $$$$$.

I make this point because the board gets accused of not being helpful in these circumstances. But the reality is that usually when the board is "not helpful" the post would have had some "I want the best audio possible", and other contradictory statements. OR it would be basically about the poster wanting approval for some specific gear that nobody thought would do what they wanted.

The general note is that you can ask anything and probably get some good answers. The problem comes when you say something like I want $$$$$$ sound but I am only willing to spend $. Or when you are not really asking a question but looking for support for something people don't think is a good idea.

I'm kind of patting the list and the OP on the back, for asking a clear question with reasonable constraints and getting answers that try to fit.
 
nothing said:
Yeah, even though half the world is captured, the subject of interest will always be center frame.
Click to expand...

Sorry to bash the topic.. I guess you are filming VR and the viewer can choose to look around the 180 frame.
It would be interesting if the VR supported multiple sound tracks and played them as per where the viewer is looking.
You would then record with three mics.. Left Centre Right and those three tracks would be embedded in the VR experience.
End of topic bash.
 
morgan_moore said:
Sorry to bash the topic.. I guess you are filming VR and the viewer can choose to look around the 180 frame.
It would be interesting if the VR supported multiple sound tracks and played them as per where the viewer is looking.
You would then record with three mics.. Left Centre Right and those three tracks would be embedded in the VR experience.
End of topic bash.
Click to expand...

Ambisonics (4 mics in a tetrahedral arrangement) provides full 3D sound which can be experienced with real-time VR head-tracking: https://www.waves.com/ambisonics-explained-guide-for-sound-engineers

I use the Ambeo with a Zoom F4 (need 4 channels; MixPre6 would be the minimum from Sound Devices): https://en-us.sennheiser.com/microphone-3d-audio-ambeo-vr-mic

YouTube supports 1st order ambisonics: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6395969?hl=en which would be output for headphones as HRTF stereo. Higher order ambisonics (HOA) require more audio channels (and thus speakers if not using HRTF stereo for headphones). 1st order can be converted to HOA with the benefit of a tighter/more defined 3D localization. Note that even mono can be converted to ambisonic (and HOA) and placed and animated in 3D as desired. The Ambisonic ToolKit (works in Reaper) can be used for this purpose as well as general ambisonic work: http://www.ambisonictoolkit.net/ (free)
 
Yes spatial audio exists, but is far from ready for prime time IMHO. There are no industry-wide standards on which formats work where, and different platforms support different formats altogether, meaning different versions must be authored for each platform - with some of them having significant performance hits and various bugs that can hobble the entire experience. AFAIK Samsung VR is the only platform that supports most formats, but it's device compatibility is severely limited so it's not a good platform for every piece.

All that aside, recording with a ambisonic mic is not the best way to create such a soundtrack, rather mixing different traditional audio tracks tracks in a spatial audio authoring program is a far better method. When I've been involved with projects utilizing spatial audio, this is the way it's been done. Output from an ambisonic mic can be used as a base for this, but that alone will be disappointing by itself unless you are creating a purely documentary/verité experience.

For most projects I skip spatial audio altogether, it's just not worth the effort in most cases. I have a couple of spatial microphones, but on a moving camera I'd much rather capture a clean mono or stereo track and have more flexibility in what to do with that in post. But then I'm a cinematographer by trade, so not surprising that I'm less interested in involved audio techniques.

I've been creating live-action VR for 5 years now, btw, winning the Samsung Creator Award in 2016 and having another piece called "best use of VR so far" by Engadget, so it's been a rewarding medium for my personal expression :) Hollywood still pays the bills, though.
 
Last edited:
;~)...

jcs is a bit of an ambisonics evangelist so probably not going to move him much. But I have to say that every few years or so someone would come in and demo some surround audio capture system at the various studios. They all had some for of the same problem, for narrative film, which is that they are what they are and don't lend themselves to creating a "world". They do capture a "world" but it is generally not the one post is trying to create. I can see them now for some basic ambience tracks but even then they would need to be pretty vanila to not get in the way of the design.

From a sound post perspective surround is created not recorded. Of course today there are a bunch of non feature film uses that may be more happy with surround recordings. Nature recordings for one might be good. The other problem is that some of these don't work all that well except on headphones. In a theatre you have a wide range of places an audience member may be sitting and with many surround formats that can mean some really big perspective changes. Films are generally fairly conservative with non front sounds because of that and because you have no idea what shape the surround speakers are in in any given theatre, or if they are even working. It's the theatres fault but it will get blamed on the film so better safe than sorry.

Certain venues/ formats like I-Max you can pretty much depend on a calibrated working sound system so those mix's tend to go a bit wilder with placement. VR games etc. should also be able to go wild since the playback environment is controlled.

What films often do is mix a number of versions for different playback situations. An ATMOS mix can be pretty adventurous because it won't be folded down on a non ATMOS system, but the projector will use a different mix. Even Dolby Digital surround mixes also have a stereo compatible optical track mix as a fall back if the DD fails or the theatre doesn't have DD.

So even though you are a cinematographer your position is pretty much what you will hear from sound post.
 
I don't think I'm disagreeing with anything he's saying though, I know he knows his stuff in VR :) Just adding my perspective.
 
nothing said:
Before this thread turns into a list of reasons that on-camera mics don't work well, or a discussion of why tiny mics aren't true shotguns or how crappy the preamps in these cameras are - please save it :) I know this will be worthless for dialog and many other kinds of audio, and I will always have lavs on anybody speaking - but this unique camera situation has unique audio capture needs and the built-in camera mics are nowhere near sufficient.
Click to expand...

Why specifically? Would help a lot with formulating better answers if you know the reasons why
 
jcs said:
Ambisonics (4 mics in a tetrahedral arrangement) provides full 3D sound which can be experienced with real-time VR head-tracking: https://www.waves.com/ambisonics-explained-guide-for-sound-engineers

I use the Ambeo with a Zoom F4 (need 4 channels; MixPre6 would be the minimum from Sound Devices): https://en-us.sennheiser.com/microphone-3d-audio-ambeo-vr-mic

YouTube supports 1st order ambisonics: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6395969?hl=en which would be output for headphones as HRTF stereo. Higher order ambisonics (HOA) require more audio channels (and thus speakers if not using HRTF stereo for headphones). 1st order can be converted to HOA with the benefit of a tighter/more defined 3D localization. Note that even mono can be converted to ambisonic (and HOA) and placed and animated in 3D as desired. The Ambisonic ToolKit (works in Reaper) can be used for this purpose as well as general ambisonic work: http://www.ambisonictoolkit.net/ (free)
Click to expand...


If it is for 360VR, then the Zoom F8 is the best low budget choice (arguably even the best choice full stop.... although I would need some hands on time with the Sonosax SX-R4+ to be sure about that)

Together with the new Rode NT-SF1 if on a low budget (also other more expensive options like the SPS200 that I've used)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top