So what's the deal about Fostex DC-R302

yoclay said:
The audio and video can roll simultaneously with the press of one RED button. No more double button manipulations. Which also means that not only is your in-camera backup audio in sync with the image, but also the recorder's, with exact in and out.
Click to expand...

This sounds great! But is this going to work with other cameras and DSLRs or is it only meant for the 5D?
 
KINOKS said:
This sounds great! But is this going to work with other cameras and DSLRs or is it only meant for the 5D?
Click to expand...

This is camera agnostic, so it should work with all of them. Here is the blurb:

The DCR302 has a Remote Start function which allows the DSCR camera's video recording to be in sync with the press of REC button using infra-red or wired connection. The DCR302 is also compatible with off the shelf wired remote controllers (Panasonic DMW-RS1 or equivalent).
Click to expand...
 
Any mixer under 500 euros is what I would call a cheap mixer and certainly if it has four channels for that price, as for quality most of the sub 500 euro ones have low quality switches which is why the Twelco ones are an absolute bargain as they should be more the 1,000 + euro mark.

Sounds like these new recorders may have a lanc type control for record built in, personally I prefer to record all my audio to my master camera but there again I use proper cameras so don't have the problem of sep sound and tend to only use it on music projects or for backup. The 5D was primarily never designed to be a video camera so that is why you then have to add on all sorts of kit to make it more functional and it also takes you back steps into the film age of sep sound and if you do it properly focus pullers.
 
If this mixer/recorder can be operated wireless along with a camera that means that you don't have to use clappers or anything to sync audio. I personally think that this is great. The only downside to this being that you would have to use the cameras remote instead of just pushing rec on the camera itself. But for situations where doing a clapper is a burden this is a great solution IMHO.
 
An even better solution if you have to do sep sound is to have a sound recordist.

I would very much doubt if it will work in the way you think via wireless, there's a certain thing about choosing the right tools for the job in hand and if a clapper is a burden then you are using the wrong camera and working practice for the job in hand.

I have to laugh at the whole DSLR thing as to just use a camera because it does shallow DOF and cinematic images then seems to throw huge limitations in other areas and then people start bolting things on and feel they then have to do sep sound which then throws all sorts of other problems into the equation.

Too much trying to re-invent the wheel to suit the low cost of something rather than looking at the job in hand and using the right tools in the first place.
 
Yes, I agree with you on that one. The reason that I'm interested in this is because I am trying to put together a workflow for a reality show at the moment.
The crew will consist of a boom op, camera op and a reporter. In the end I just opted for a dr100 as it's going to be a low budget project. This will involve making long takes which will produce tons of material as it's going to be recorded in DVCproHD. I'm actually considering shooting it in 720p. It's going to be a webisodic show - not broadcast...

First I thought that I would do a wireless hop from the mixer to the camera. But I wasn't to comfortable using just wireless so I decided to record a backup on the tascam. In the end I just went with the tascam and decidec to use a clapper:) But this kind of mixer/recorder that Fostex is trying to deliver would really solve this kind of productions. Productions on a budget. If you factor in the costs of one sistem that uses a mixer, recorder and a wireless kit it sums up more compared to just using this Fostex. Although this is when recording with only one camera... I don't know, maybe I'm wrong... I'm hungry, going to make lunch now:) I just love it when I'm home doing scripts, the food is better:)
 
But if you have it already your tascam DR100 on it's own it will virtually give you the same as the fostex and I doubt you will want three mics open at the same time, if you do then I would add a mixer such as the twelco if you have the DR100 already as it will give you more flexibility. Can the boom op actually act as a sound recordist as monitoring what is happening will be more important than just buying another bit of kit that in my opinion is vastly overpriced and doesn't do very much for the money.

If I was doing this then I would be using my mixer as the main source and then plug in my sennheiser radio transmitter to link the sound back to the camera I would then use a local recorder as a back up to that system, the twelco has lots of outputs available and can do a lot more than that fostex if you just add a recorder to it.

the fostex is designed to be an add on to a DSLR as an easy way to enable better sound recording not as a replacement for mixers and the like if you are doing sep sound the way you plan to and as said I think it is way overpriced for what it does.

P.S I would also record 720p for this type of programming as it gives more recording space but is still good quality.
 
KINOKS said:
If this mixer/recorder can be operated wireless along with a camera that means that you don't have to use clappers or anything to sync audio. I personally think that this is great. The only downside to this being that you would have to use the cameras remote instead of just pushing rec on the camera itself. But for situations where doing a clapper is a burden this is a great solution IMHO.
Click to expand...

Not quite.

Even if the one remote can start and stop both devices, you still have separate audio and video files, from separate recording devices, from separate manufacturers. They won't have the same response time, so the files won't have the exact ins and outs. Plus, wireless remote isn't terribly reliable and there's a chance that occasionally one device will pick up the signal while the other won't.

The clapper is your fallback, and even if things work properly in this setup it doesn't mean everything will be identical... just much easier to align in post.
 
Alex H. said:
Not quite.

Even if the one remote can start and stop both devices, you still have separate audio and video files, from separate recording devices, from separate manufacturers. They won't have the same response time, so the files won't have the exact ins and outs. Plus, wireless remote isn't terribly reliable and there's a chance that occasionally one device will pick up the signal while the other won't.

The clapper is your fallback, and even if things work properly in this setup it doesn't mean everything will be identical... just much easier to align in post.
Click to expand...


The unit doesn't just function with a wireless remote and infrared. It can also do simultaneous with wired-in connection which probably means that the lapse between the units is nanoseconds. Further it is capable of running into both the camera audio track as well as the recorder at the same time, so I doubt there will be the kind of synchronization issues that you speak of, especially if it is being positioned in terms of the DSLR market for this very usage. It also has an auto slate function, so it looks to me like the potential issue you describe is probably covered.
 
Alex H. said:
i...f things work properly in this setup it doesn't mean everything will be identical... just much easier to align in post.
Click to expand...

Well yes...that's the point isn't it. The camera and the sound op don't have to worry about sync issues.

It's enough for the camera op to say "rolling" and then the sound guy just has to look at the recorder to see if it's recording to. If not he says "wait! again!" and that's it. If everything else works as it's supposed to work I see this as a good setup to have. And the auto slate options sounds good to.

The way I see it, field audio workflow has been a little left behind. Slating, wired timecodes, wireless hops and what not is really all quite anachronistic in my opinion - keep in mind please that I am not tech savy when it comes to audio so don't take my opinions to seriously...
I predict that this field of production will see some innovations in the near future. This recorder/mixer from Fostex is a modest one...
 
Well location sound has been very well defined and sorted for many years but I think there are far too many people and companies trying to re-invent wheels and cut corners so that people can use kit that is not designed for the purpose of making films or shooting video.

Also there are too many people cutting production corners but still expecting to get squeaky clean audio that sounds like the movies but I'm afraid it;s all getting a bit sloppy and that is affecting mainstream media too.

It will all settle down in time as people get bored with all the shallow DOF DSLR shooting style but the principles of audio recording and physics will stay the same whatever piece of kit comes along to try and do it easier, for $1,200 or £899 there are far better ways to invest your money in audio kit but if you don't have the disciplines or workflows to do it properly you will still be having to compromise the end results.
 
I predict that this field of production will see some innovations in the near future. This recorder/mixer from Fostex is a modest one...
Click to expand...
Maybe a camera that records audio... what a concept!
 
Rick R said:
Maybe a camera that records audio... what a concept!
Click to expand...
Seems unlikely, however.

At the bottom end, camcorder designers are too cost-conscious to do anything decent, and the lowest levels don't even have audio input jacks.

And the mid-range camcorders have servicable audio performance for covering breaking news or home-movies. But is assumed that people who need GOOD audio are using double-system.

And the high-end equipment just takes for-granted that you are using double-system sound, and some cameras don't record sound at all.

So I would bet that really good audio quality is something we will never see in a camcorder.
 
KINOKS said:
The camera and the sound op don't have to worry about sync issues.

It's enough for the camera op to say "rolling" and then the sound guy just has to look at the recorder to see if it's recording to. If not he says "wait! again!" and that's it. If everything else works as it's supposed to work I see this as a good setup to have. And the auto slate options sounds good to.
Click to expand...

This is a mixer/recorder that's designed to be mounted under the camera, and that's where it has to be for the single-remote solution. If you have a camera op and a sound person working together, the last place you want your mixer/recorder to be is strapped under the camera. That makes access for the sound person quite difficult.

Back in the days of BetaSP, I would run with my mixer tied to the camera by a 25' ENG snake. While I could monitor audio from the camera at the mixer, it wasn't reliable that I'd be able to be in full view of the camera's meters, hidden conveniently behind the camera person's head. Further, Sony designed these wonderfully unstable level controls for the audio section of the camera that would readjust themselves for no apparent reason, with no warning, and often at the worst possible time. I would routinely calibrate my mixer ot the camera, and put gaff tape over the level controls on the camera in pure hope that the levels wouldn't be knocked out of whack. But even at that, I had the mixer at my end and had control over levels. For what it's worth, Sony fixed the rotary pot design with their DigiBeta cameras, but it was still a pain knowing I couldn't reach those controls if I absolutely had to, unless we were down for a few minutes. And there were several times that I had a camera person mess with audio controls on the camera, which was also frustrating.

I actually prefer running double-system. I know that I have complete control over the sound, and no one can screw it up except for me. But I couldn't imagine leaving my mixer and recorder tied under the camera while I tried to work... unless I was also operating the camera.

KINOKS said:
The way I see it, field audio workflow has been a little left behind.
Click to expand...

The workflow for field audio production is still very familiar to decades past, but don't let that fool you. It's come a very long way, especially in the past 10 years. Mixers and recorders are available with features not even dreamed of years ago, and at prices that 20-year-old me would have thought to be too low to be real. Considering that recorders of decades past cost thousands of dollars, but couldn't hold a candle in recording quality to machines that run at a fraction of those prices today, I'd say audio production has kept up quite nicely.

As far as time code, film production 100 years ago didn't have it. Sound was recorded on a separate device with only a dumb slate to sync. Time code came much later, and it has evolved as well in field production and has made things much easier to handle in both production and post. But the dumb slate still has a very special place in production, with the quality of lower-end equipment being able to produce remarkable results these days even without any TC sync feature. It wasn't that long ago that the Panasonic Supercam (SVHS) and the Sony CCD-V5000 (Hi8) were considered as amazing technology at a lower price (albeit a 4-digit price), and look at what we can get for much less money now.

Add to that the standard in field mixers. Even as late as 2000, the Shure FP33 was still considered the go-to ENG/EFP mixer. Sound Devices was just starting to turn heads at that point. The FP33, however, can't hold a candle to the SD 302. It's noisy, it's kind of clumsy in many ways. But we used it and we loved it, until we heard something much better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top