Chris Johnston
Veteran
I'm right there with you too. I use the mic into an old beachtek straight into the camera. Pop a quick denoiser to lift the floor a little and boom it's good to go. (and yes I use it for broadcast)
Last edited:
TO DOWNGRADE FROM 7D TO A T2i OR 60D BECAUSE OF AGC YES OR NO ? PRO'S AND CON'S ?
- Thread starter produce12
- Start date
I'm right there with you too. I use the mic into an old beachtek straight into the camera. Pop a quick denoiser to lift the floor a little and boom it's good to go. (and yes I use it for broadcast)
M. Gilden
Canon DSLR Moderator
pretentious much?
gosh, its no magic formula, and folks have already done it. ::rolls eyes::
M. Gilden
Canon DSLR Moderator
I didn't say it wasn't true- I just said it sounded pretentious. What he said has little to do with DLSR in particular (it even happens to the "big boys", as you say).
Listen, if I were filming something that was important enough to me that I'd be willing to pay someone to fix in post, I sure as heck wouldn't be recording into the camera to begin with, even back in my DVX days! No sir, you get a dedicated sound guy operating his own equipment and monitoring live via headphones.
But for everything else I would shoot, interviews, product demonstration, etc, basically anything that doesn't require an epic sound environment to set the mood, I most often shoot with a wireless lav myself. With my DVX, I would just use the XLR inputs on the camcorder, check the level at start, and just go. For those situations, I see no reason I can't use the mic input on the camera the same I did on the DVX for the same purposes, provided I take the necessary steps to make it sound ok first (disable AGC, hot feed, raise analog gain, no digital gain, etc).
As recordingwhiz states, for some projects "we sadly and unfortunately live in a world where most people consider mp3 a 'good sounding' medium". Yes, and not all of us are shooting epic blockbusters that require perfect atmospheric audio all the time. If I were, I still wouldn't need an H4N- I'd get a guy with their own gear. Again, this is me and how I do things, and I understand we all shoot different kinds of video for different purposes.
But the way some of you guys go on about stuff here, you'll have n00bs running around with H4Ns to record background traffic for a streaming web video. I'm sorry, but that is just not necessary!
ROCKMORE
Veteran
I've shot with the 7D, 5D, and owned the 550D for 10 months and upgraded to the 60D. After the 7D you won't like the controls on the 550D. The 60D uses the back wheel for aperture and front wheel for shutter speed. With the 550D to change the aperture in manual mode you must hold one button down on the back and at the same time turn the finger wheel on the front. If you don't it will change your shutter speed. Bad if that happens in a rush and you don't notice.
I don't remember if the 7D has "quick focus" but the 60D does and the 550D doesn't. This allows the mirror to return to photo mode and focus instantly. In live mode as on the 550D it searches and can seem as slow as watching paint dry as you action comes and goes. I usually target a focus point in auto then when it's locked I hit the record button. You can loose a lot of shots in the real world waiting for the live mode to find it's mark.
The manual control over AGC is a plus, but as many have said it's still noisy, sadly it is, I have done many tests. Still hopeful I can find a better solution in camera. Still 100% better that the 550D with AGC. Personally I'd forget the hack. Even Magic Lantern warns you there is no guarantee it will work. Better lesser quality then no picture and no audio when disaster strikes. Besides why would you want a hacked camera when there is a better camera with factory manual audio for only a small increase in cost. Your time is worth everything.
The flip screen is a great benefit both for floor camera angles waist shots and overhead. I still for paying shoots lock the screen on the back and use a focus loop because I don't usually risk focus I can see when I'm shooting.
The 7D overheated many more times than the 550D ever did. The 60D hasn't overheated yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
I really like the 60D and if I go for a 5D mark III when it arrives I will surely keep my 60D and a daily carry around.
I'd forget the 550D at this point. I only got $600 with the kit lens for mine.
Last edited:
* thumbs down *
Try recording with the internal Microphone in an area which you are not basically isolated from the world......
That test is actually pointless for me, as someone recording audio in a crowded room or city street would be totally different. The audio from these cameras is horrible, period.
recordingwhiz
Well-known member
I asked early on in this thread what type of filming he was doing...
he replied "movies and short films" which would lead me to believe that he is producing projects that he cares enough about to get a nice camera and ask the questions about the audio.
It appears that he is not trying to do basic ENG type shoots or youtube only minis (where camera audio may be passable). Due to this I would assume he is actually wanting to produce something to the best that it can be made within his capabilities, and there is no way that I or any sane person recommend downgrading camera just to get "possibly passable audio for youtube", especially when there are so many other advantages to some one doing what he is doing with his camera.
1. HDMI output doesnt scale down when recording !! this is huge if you get a small LCD monitor like a lilliput or marshall, way better than the little flip out LCD.
2. weatherized... nuff said !
3. more menu options without having to hack the camera!! (I'm sure not every one is willing to fool with the process that it takes to run the ML software)
4. keeping his 7D and investing in a separate recorder makes the bad audio/AGC point moot. even the H1 is huge improvement, if just for the capability to monitor audio alone!!
so knowing he wants to make movies and short films, The downgrading to a 60D for its AGC defeat is pointless.
and BTW sorry for sounding/being pretentious... but I do stand by my previous post.. its true and acurate.
he replied "movies and short films" which would lead me to believe that he is producing projects that he cares enough about to get a nice camera and ask the questions about the audio.
It appears that he is not trying to do basic ENG type shoots or youtube only minis (where camera audio may be passable). Due to this I would assume he is actually wanting to produce something to the best that it can be made within his capabilities, and there is no way that I or any sane person recommend downgrading camera just to get "possibly passable audio for youtube", especially when there are so many other advantages to some one doing what he is doing with his camera.
1. HDMI output doesnt scale down when recording !! this is huge if you get a small LCD monitor like a lilliput or marshall, way better than the little flip out LCD.
2. weatherized... nuff said !
3. more menu options without having to hack the camera!! (I'm sure not every one is willing to fool with the process that it takes to run the ML software)
4. keeping his 7D and investing in a separate recorder makes the bad audio/AGC point moot. even the H1 is huge improvement, if just for the capability to monitor audio alone!!
so knowing he wants to make movies and short films, The downgrading to a 60D for its AGC defeat is pointless.
and BTW sorry for sounding/being pretentious... but I do stand by my previous post.. its true and acurate.
WhiteMonkey
Well-known member
There is no point trying to work with the audio on the 7D. It is best used with an external recorder. You can easily sync the two soundtracks in post.
The 7D is not a camcorder. It DOES NOT have XLR audio. I wouldn't use anything less than XLR all of the way through the sound pipeline. Mini-Mic jacks are poor quality and noisy. That should be your first clue.
Second there is no audio monitoring. This has been said before.
If you're making films and movies, you should try working with a sound crew. Makes the whole process easier. I found people to work with locally on Meetup.
On top of all of that, you're going to lose money selling the 7D to chase your audio woes.
The 7D is not a camcorder. It DOES NOT have XLR audio. I wouldn't use anything less than XLR all of the way through the sound pipeline. Mini-Mic jacks are poor quality and noisy. That should be your first clue.
Second there is no audio monitoring. This has been said before.
If you're making films and movies, you should try working with a sound crew. Makes the whole process easier. I found people to work with locally on Meetup.
On top of all of that, you're going to lose money selling the 7D to chase your audio woes.
WhiteMonkey
Well-known member
As important as all this equipment talk is, remember "People make films, machinery doesn't." - Eric Sherman
M. Gilden
Canon DSLR Moderator
Fair enough. He did say Movies and Short Films, but again- if audio is critical, I wouldn't recommend doing it yourself while operating the camera either way.
For less critical shots, I've seen the 60D used to record documentary-style audio a lot with amped mics going straight in.
For example, this little short is shot with an AT897 powered by an AA:
http://vimeo.com/17450671
The only scene that uses an external recorder is the kitchen scene. Everything else (especially the dialog while walking) is recorded on camera. Is it epic-sounding? No. Is it dog-poo quality? Absolutely not. I think it effectively tells the story and sets the mood of the shots.
The ML hack gives even more options to differentiate between analog gain and digital levels for even more precise and higher quality sound (ML is in progress for the 60D as well, btw). But yes, in a situation that perfect audio is critical I wouldn't trust it- if for no other reason than the lack of live monitoring.
But I would use it for all the things I used to record into my DVX for. All I'm saying is that all you folks pressuring everyone to use an H4N is a little silly. Its not always necessary.
Ultimately, should the OP downgrade his camera?
I dunno, the 7D is really nice. I was originally going to buy that one until I decided I didn't need to spend the extra $$ just yet (got a fantastic deal on a refurbished T2i that I'd be stupid to refuse).
Also, I'm a tinkerer by nature, though, and can't resist the temptation to play with firmware to make the camera do things it wasn't designed to do (just about every digital device I own is hacked, from my car stereo to my game systems, phones, everything! I like to unlock the full potential of my equipment and it bothers me when something is physically possible, yet not "enabled" by default. Heck, I even contributed to the custom rom development community for HTC phones- I'm an engineer by nature). That alone would justify going with a t2i/550D for me. But that's me. Some of us want to rely on the manufacturer specs and just know everything works correctly. That's your own prerogative. The fact that the 7D turns out to be "locked down" for some reason, deterring any custom development, makes me glad I didn't buy one.
But, if I already had one, I'm not sure it'd be worth the "hit" financially to sell it and buy a cheaper camera. The amount of money you'd probably lose selling the camera now might be about what it costs to purchase a Zoom anyway! The only reason to do it then, is if your workflow doesn't allow for the extra time and steps to sync up the audio in post. Doesn't sound like that's your issue, though. I still stand behind my comments that you can get perfectly workable audio out of the 550 and 60, but I'm going to have to agree with folks like recordingwhiz and say its not worth it in the OP's position.
Now, ideally, if you're going to buy a second cam to have around, I would probably go with the 60 or 550. But to sell your 7D and lose money on the deal, I'd say keep it and buy a Zoom. The 7D is built better and will probably last longer (retaining its value longer).
Last edited:
recordingwhiz
Well-known member
Im sorry if that example is one of yours, but the hiss and noise is distracting enough to make it hard to watch, not to mention the noise types and level changes as the scene changes.
That is exactly proving my point and the type of work I am constantly taxed with trying to fix...
Have you listened to it on some nice headphones or speakers? perhaps what you're monitoring on doesn't show the problem, Im just listening from laptop direct into my Klipsch Image X10s in ear headphones and the noise is VERY noticeable.
All I can say is that as a filmmaker I would NOT consider that example as acceptable audio.
just my opinion.
BTW your visuals are nice, and I really don't mean to be mean.
That is exactly proving my point and the type of work I am constantly taxed with trying to fix...
Have you listened to it on some nice headphones or speakers? perhaps what you're monitoring on doesn't show the problem, Im just listening from laptop direct into my Klipsch Image X10s in ear headphones and the noise is VERY noticeable.
All I can say is that as a filmmaker I would NOT consider that example as acceptable audio.
just my opinion.
BTW your visuals are nice, and I really don't mean to be mean.
Last edited:
M. Gilden
Canon DSLR Moderator
Its ok, no offense taken- its not actually my work (I don't even own a 60D).
Someone shared this with me a while back when I asked how audio on the 60D is, and I thought it wasn't half bad for what it was. It got me thinking that good audio is possible. Then I saw the 5D audio tests with John on Vimeo that I posted a couple of pages back, and realized there is a lot more possible.
Again, my intent in sharing this was not to show an example of something with GOOD audio, but rather an example of where it was used at all. In all honesty, a little level adjustment in post on this video would have done wonders for the continuity as well.
However, you can easily contrast this with video shot on pro-sumer cameras by people who are not audio professionals. In fact, a buddy of mine shot something for broadcast with an HVX with the gain on the mic receiver's pre-amp set too high. He didn't know where the problem was and kept adjusting the audio on the camera to no avail (problem existed outside the camera- it was rented audio equipment he wasn't familiar with). Came out usable, but definitely worse than this video I linked to. And it was still used for broadcast I believe.
I said it before, and I'll say it again. If you want the highest quality audio for your production, I wouldn't want to be doing the audio at all, in any camera! Go external, and find someone else to be in charge of it, preferably an audio engineer who knows their own equipment.
However, not every project requires it, and for those you can easily use the internal one. That is all.
EDIT: Just found this posted today. Interesting test - http://vimeo.com/groups/magiclantern/videos/18489831
Last edited:
recordingwhiz
Well-known member
I think were both saying the same thing, you're just a little more optimistic than I am.
I totally agree that a sound guy IS the best choice.
but finding a decent audio guy that he can afford is probably harder than equipping him with the tools he needs to get truly decent audio by himself rather than wasting time trying very hard to achieve something that is more easily done by just going with an external recorder.
just because something made it out to broadcast doesn't make it good enough for a film or short.
I would and do take the attitude that if you're creating a film or short , and are willing to spend the time and effort on getting pretty pictures, which shows, he is by investing in a 7d, then he should do the same for audio, and not settle for polished dog poo audio.
after all most people invest in movie making as a dream of creating something that will have a longer life than a news clip or short interview for broadcast.
just like your sample, I bet they didn't set out to have bad audio, but they ended up with it. Im sure if they knew from the beginning how bad it was gonna be, they might have invested in a recorder. (if they could)
This sadly happens a lot when the film maker is inexperienced and hasn't put as much thought or given enough priority into the audio and just focused on pretty pictures and all the video hoopla, then you end up with a good looking crappy sounding movie that has little chance to be taken seriously or getting you laid.
lol.. just kidding on that last part.
And the ultimate truth still holds true: Its not just the gear, its knowing what to do with it... there isn't a piece of gear that makes up for knowledge and experiance.
I totally agree that a sound guy IS the best choice.
but finding a decent audio guy that he can afford is probably harder than equipping him with the tools he needs to get truly decent audio by himself rather than wasting time trying very hard to achieve something that is more easily done by just going with an external recorder.
just because something made it out to broadcast doesn't make it good enough for a film or short.
I would and do take the attitude that if you're creating a film or short , and are willing to spend the time and effort on getting pretty pictures, which shows, he is by investing in a 7d, then he should do the same for audio, and not settle for polished dog poo audio.
after all most people invest in movie making as a dream of creating something that will have a longer life than a news clip or short interview for broadcast.
just like your sample, I bet they didn't set out to have bad audio, but they ended up with it. Im sure if they knew from the beginning how bad it was gonna be, they might have invested in a recorder. (if they could)
This sadly happens a lot when the film maker is inexperienced and hasn't put as much thought or given enough priority into the audio and just focused on pretty pictures and all the video hoopla, then you end up with a good looking crappy sounding movie that has little chance to be taken seriously or getting you laid.
lol.. just kidding on that last part.
And the ultimate truth still holds true: Its not just the gear, its knowing what to do with it... there isn't a piece of gear that makes up for knowledge and experiance.
M. Gilden
Canon DSLR Moderator
Ok, how about I put it like this:
We agree that for shooting a movie/short film to be submitted to a festival, etc, no one should use the camera to record audio.
We agree that the OP, in his situation, should not downgrade his camera just for AGC and better audio controls.
Where I think we disagree, however, is whether or not the in-camera recording is good enough to use for anything at all.
You seem to be under the impression that anything recorded off of it is, erm, "dog poo", and avoided like the plague. Meanwhile, I think there are plenty of projects it would be perfectly fine for, such as run-and-gun style documentary shoots, instructional videos for web, interviews, etc.
Personally, my exact setup for this kind of thing is the same as this guy's (sennheiser wireless lav into camera with ML hack):
http://vimeo.com/18489831
I think it sounds great for this kind of interview/monologue shoot.
As I linked earlier, John @ p3pictures showed us decent audio is possible with his thorough testing: http://vimeo.com/5388476 , and folks like Dave Dugdale at learningdslrvideo use mics directly into the cam for a regular instructional video series (http://www.learningdslrvideo.com/dslr-picture-style-beginners/).
Granted, this is not what the OP is trying to do, so I will agree with you that he shouldn't bother if he is planning on shooting short films and movies. However, I felt the need to argue this point with you because newbies are under the impression that the camera audio is unusable for ANYTHING. And I'm sorry but I think we're giving them the wrong idea.
We agree that for shooting a movie/short film to be submitted to a festival, etc, no one should use the camera to record audio.
We agree that the OP, in his situation, should not downgrade his camera just for AGC and better audio controls.
Where I think we disagree, however, is whether or not the in-camera recording is good enough to use for anything at all.
You seem to be under the impression that anything recorded off of it is, erm, "dog poo", and avoided like the plague. Meanwhile, I think there are plenty of projects it would be perfectly fine for, such as run-and-gun style documentary shoots, instructional videos for web, interviews, etc.
Personally, my exact setup for this kind of thing is the same as this guy's (sennheiser wireless lav into camera with ML hack):
http://vimeo.com/18489831
I think it sounds great for this kind of interview/monologue shoot.
As I linked earlier, John @ p3pictures showed us decent audio is possible with his thorough testing: http://vimeo.com/5388476 , and folks like Dave Dugdale at learningdslrvideo use mics directly into the cam for a regular instructional video series (http://www.learningdslrvideo.com/dslr-picture-style-beginners/).
Granted, this is not what the OP is trying to do, so I will agree with you that he shouldn't bother if he is planning on shooting short films and movies. However, I felt the need to argue this point with you because newbies are under the impression that the camera audio is unusable for ANYTHING. And I'm sorry but I think we're giving them the wrong idea.
mrchirster
Well-known member
here is another simple solution by recording one fake track that keeps the agc at a minimmum noise level: http://www.dslrcable.com/