Wiress Lav Recommendation for Interviews

[Richard Crowley]

I know this is the AUDIO discussion of this project. And there has been some good discussion of options and tradeoffs. However, the stated goal of "very professional video" but then the insistence on depending on ambient light with NO video lights makes me think that this is an impossible task. There seems to be an overwhelming concentration on cameras and lenses, and a reasonable (but not equavelent, IMHO) concern about audio.

But leaving lighting to ambient just seems like a complete show-stopper to me. if you look at all the examples, the video, and the still shots, you will note very careful lighting. Nobody leaves lighting to chance if they want "very professional video". And the seeming requirement for "zero crew" makes me think that there is a major disconnect between the resources and the expectations for this project. Shaking my head in disbelief.

 

[andvx]

Now take a piece of string and make one end of it the top of the persons head..and the other the camera lens. Start raising the tripod.
Eventually if you can keep going up you're going to hit the mic with the string correct?

Thanks for the string test. Works perfectly and illustrates the point entirely.

Thanks Rippie

 

[andvx]

A creative decision then. If that's what you need, then that's what you need. That leaves you with either wireless (where you started) or static booming from a c-stand, which is what we talk about below.



Yep. If you're doing all this as interior work (small studio, location work, etc.) then you probably don't want a shotgun mic. Why? Interference tube mics don't handle rapid reflections well. That is, if they are close enough to a wall or ceiling that both the reflection and the direct sound arrive closely together enough, the interference tube can generate some comb filtering artifacts. Sounds bad, hard to impossible to fix in post. Take great pains to avoid this.

Far better in those cases to use a hypercardiod. The Hollywood standards are the Sennheiser MKH8050 and the Schoeps CMC6-mk41. The indy favorites for this same duty are the AT 4053b and the Audix SCX1-HC. Search around on this site and others and these are the ones that keep coming to the top of the list. Just sayin'.

BTW, I also own a 4053b and it sounds considerably better than the Sennheiser G3 with either the stock Sennheiser lav or the OST (but the OST is a sizable improvement for (of course) more money). And it's less money than the G3 and the stock lav, which makes it a good value in my book.



Positioning is important. Mic needs to be close -- no farther than 60cm. Basically you want the mic out in front of the interviewee and pointing at roughly a 45 degree angle back at the mouth, and just above your frame line. Closer is better, around 45cm is typically a sweet spot, but if your talent moves around much at all being that close can allow talent to wander out of pattern. Better to back off some if that's a problem.

Hi Bruce,
Thanks for the suggestions and explaining the interference and differences between shotguns and hypercardiods.

I'm not familiar with the Audix SCX1-HC and there aren't many reviews online about it either, but from the limited reviews available it sounds incredible. Warm and rich and not too soft.


Thanks Bruce

 

[andvx]

It's your gig, and you know your travel limitations better than we do. But audio gear aside, I would for sure include a small set of LED lights/diffusion/batteries/small lightweight stands into your kit. You are leaving so much to chance by not monitoring the audio and video during the shoot. Don't also shoot yourself in the foot by relying on lighting your corporate execs with available office light. The space you have available for the interview may not have adequate subject lighting.

Good Luck!

Dave

Hi Dave,
Thanks and I agree there is a risk with not bringing lighting.

If you were to suggest portable LED lightning, what would you suggest?


Thanks

 

[andvx]

I know this is the AUDIO discussion of this project. And there has been some good discussion of options and tradeoffs. However, the stated goal of "very professional video" but then the insistence on depending on ambient light with NO video lights makes me think that this is an impossible task. There seems to be an overwhelming concentration on cameras and lenses, and a reasonable (but not equavelent, IMHO) concern about audio.

But leaving lighting to ambient just seems like a complete show-stopper to me. if you look at all the examples, the video, and the still shots, you will note very careful lighting. Nobody leaves lighting to chance if they want "very professional video". And the seeming requirement for "zero crew" makes me think that there is a major disconnect between the resources and the expectations for this project. Shaking my head in disbelief.

Hi Richard,
This is obviously a learning experience which I am trying to balance and minimise unequal trade-offs and compromises.

For example, if I go with the 42.5mm f1.7 instead of the Nocticron f/1.2 (4 x the price), I can allocate those funds to audio, etc. While I am reluctant to invest into any lightning for the reasons stated already, I'm still looking into this.

If you can shed light on this, keeping portability, complexity, and setup in mind, would you go with ring lights or panel lights? Any suggested products?


Thanks Richard

 

[Richard Crowley]

This is the best treatise on portable lighting I have ever seen.
Highly recommended to study it carefully.
There are likely half a dozen good ideas here that you could use directly.

http://www.bluesky-web.com/light-kit.htm

EDIT: And there are is lots more good instructional material from Mr. Graff:
http://www.bluesky-web.com/ click on Purchase/Learn

There is also a lighting forum like this one for sound.
THey also have some interesting "stickies" of FAQ, etc.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?27-Lighting-Gear

 

[andvx]

This is the best treatise on portable lighting I have ever seen.
Highly recommended to study it carefully.
There are likely half a dozen good ideas here that you could use directly.

http://www.bluesky-web.com/light-kit.htm

EDIT: And there are is lots more good instructional material from Mr. Graff:
http://www.bluesky-web.com/ click on Purchase/Learn

There is also a lighting forum like this one for sound.
THey also have some interesting "stickies" of FAQ, etc.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?27-Lighting-Gear

Thanks for the link Richard; they are great and very helpful.


Thanks

 

[chrisbernard]

I would buy the cheaper lens and put money into lighting. Granted you are using Micro 4/3 but you don't want to shoot an interview at F1.7. I tend to shoot interviews at F4.0 to F5.6, you need some flexibility around DOF to keep folks in focus unless they really aren't moving at all.

 

[Noiz2]

I would by the cheaper lens and put money into lighting. Granted you are using Micro 4/3 but you don't want to shoot an interview at F1.7. I tend to shoot interviews at F4.0 to F5.6, you need some flexibility around DOF to keep folks in focus unless they really aren't moving at all.

I would agree on the lens choice, 4X for one stop is a lot unless you NEED that one stop. Being an amateur at shooting moving from shooting stills on film (back when) to shooting mostly video on a DSLR ... THe ability to shoot in low light is staggering. Plus you are going to be using a much slower shutter than you would with stills so it's really not worth it for interviews. Plus as said above your DOF will become an issue shooting wide open.

THere are incredibly bright (dimmable) LED lights on Amazon for under $30. They work off of the Sony camcorder batteries or a bunch of AA's. Your going to probably need to gel them since they are a bit green, but they do come with a filter that pretty much fixes that. There are much nicer ones at higher prices but my point was you can pack a solution for very little $ that will certainly help when nature is not cooperating.

I would definitely spend some $ on sound. You can push the ISO if you have to and video noise reduction in post (if you have to do it) is pretty impressive these days. You don't have any cheap or easy fix for sound. If it's junk when you shoot it is never going to be much better than junk. Maybe junk with a new coat of paint.

If the shoot is also a "learning experience" Then I can speak a bit to that since while I have done sound for quite awhile I just started playing around with shooting. I have been working on these personal projects with essentially no crew, despite my constant recommendations for others to use a crew. My rationalization is that I don't really want to waste others time on my learning experience. It's valid to a point, but the experience really enforces my get a crew/ film is a team sport point of view.

I have also not spent a lot of time dealing with audio on these projects. That has been fine mostly because they have been about me practicing shooting and lighting and editing. So none of the ones I came up with need much if any production sound. But I got roped into shooting some material for a no budget documentary about a community project. It will be "ok" since again 99% of the footage will not use the production sound, the 1% that is interviews were a huge PITA because I wasn't really practiced with shooting AND sound and of course I didn't have a real crew.

My take aways were, if you are not rock solid in all areas camera you are not going to have the free brain cels available to think about sound. I didn't and I have done production sound and have been doing post sound professionally for over a decade... just realized that should be two decades...

So while it's not at all a given that just because I can't do it somebody else can't, I would say that if you are not someone who is naturally sound aware the odds of having some unfixable mess for your sound is VERY high. I won't do another interview with out dragging some friend/ stranger/ pet? to pay attention to sound. As long as they keep monitoring and puch me when it sounds off I can switch gears and deal with it. But with out the extra ears I find I start looking and not hearing way too easily.

 

[andvx]

I would by the cheaper lens and put money into lighting. Granted you are using Micro 4/3 but you don't want to shoot an interview at F1.7. I tend to shoot interviews at F4.0 to F5.6, you need some flexibility around DOF to keep folks in focus unless they really aren't moving at all.

Hi Chris,
Thanks for the suggestion.

I agree the interview wouldn't be shot at F1.7; too many issues with DOF and focusing.

On this note, would you still opt for a 42.5mm (85mm) portrait lense, or go with a 12-35 and zoom in?



Thanks Chris

 

[andvx]

Hi Noiz2,
Thanks for your input and experiences.

I would agree on the lens choice, 4X for one stop is a lot unless you NEED that one stop. Being an amateur at shooting moving from shooting stills on film (back when) to shooting mostly video on a DSLR ... THe ability to shoot in low light is staggering. Plus you are going to be using a much slower shutter than you would with stills so it's really not worth it for interviews. Plus as said above your DOF will become an issue shooting wide open.

THere are incredibly bright (dimmable) LED lights on Amazon for under $30. They work off of the Sony camcorder batteries or a bunch of AA's. Your going to probably need to gel them since they are a bit green, but they do come with a filter that pretty much fixes that. There are much nicer ones at higher prices but my point was you can pack a solution for very little $ that will certainly help when nature is not cooperating.

If going the slightly pricier option with products such as Aputure 528, etc., are there any you would recommend? In an office/corporate environment would you go for a 3-light setup?

I would definitely spend some $ on sound. You can push the ISO if you have to and video noise reduction in post (if you have to do it) is pretty impressive these days. You don't have any cheap or easy fix for sound. If it's junk when you shoot it is never going to be much better than junk. Maybe junk with a new coat of paint.

I have found that to be 100% true. Video can be cleaned up to a certain extent. If the lighting and shadows are really poor then it's difficult. Sound though is definitely a problem if it isn't captured well. With your experience in sound recording, are you opting for overhead mics or lavs? Any recommendations?

If the shoot is also a "learning experience" Then I can speak a bit to that since while I have done sound for quite awhile I just started playing around with shooting. I have been working on these personal projects with essentially no crew, despite my constant recommendations for others to use a crew. My rationalization is that I don't really want to waste others time on my learning experience. It's valid to a point, but the experience really enforces my get a crew/ film is a team sport point of view.

Do you feel you need a crew to achieve the outcome you desired? Is it a nice to have or a requirement in your view?

So while it's not at all a given that just because I can't do it somebody else can't, I would say that if you are not someone who is naturally sound aware the odds of having some unfixable mess for your sound is VERY high. I won't do another interview with out dragging some friend/ stranger/ pet? to pay attention to sound. As long as they keep monitoring and puch me when it sounds off I can switch gears and deal with it. But with out the extra ears I find I start looking and not hearing way too easily.

Just a quick one on the sound. Besides subjects moving around when interviewing as they naturally do when talking, moving their hands, and being emotive, why are there typically so many issues with recording good sound? Does equipment fail and not record, or is it simply a matter of the subject moving away from the mic (if overhead), etc?


Thanks Noiz2

 

[Noiz2]

If going the slightly pricier option with products such as Aputure 528, etc., are there any you would recommend? In an office/corporate environment would you go for a 3-light setup?

I would listen to others on lighting as my lighting experience is mostly with theatre. I probably wouldn't try doing fancy lighting for an interview. I cary the LED's because I have found that sometimes there just isn't enough light or the light is really ugly. So I'm generally just trying to supplement or correct what is already there. Doing more than that starts to get into more work than I want to do on these personal projects.

I have found that to be 100% true. Video can be cleaned up to a certain extent. If the lighting and shadows are really poor then it's difficult. Sound though is definitely a problem if it isn't captured well. With your experience in sound recording, are you opting for overhead mics or lavs? Any recommendations?

Really up to you but if you are on your own lavs are probably the better choice.

Do you feel you need a crew to achieve the outcome you desired? Is it a nice to have or a requirement in your view?

What I found with my self is what I have seen with others. You can't really hear and see at the same time, at least not critically. So if I'm shooting I don't notice 90% of the things I would have noticed if I were recording. It's also why I'm almost never looking at the action while I'm recording, unless of course I'm also booming. But then I'm looking for mic placement and not at the action so really both are sound related.

My best guess is that if you work really hard at it you can probably learn to split attention so neither is "bad", but then neither is all it could be either. It comes down to what the needs are and what compromises you are willing to make. For me at this time shooting I can compromise the sound because I'm learning the camera and I can work around the sound and none of these projects are being funded except out of my pocket as a learning tool. If I had plans to do a show that others were going to see or I was trying to sell I would use a crew.

Just a quick one on the sound. Besides subjects moving around when interviewing as they naturally do when talking, moving their hands, and being emotive, why are there typically so many issues with recording good sound? Does equipment fail and not record, or is it simply a matter of the subject moving away from the mic (if overhead), etc?

It's because nobody was really listening. Maybe the equipment failed and nobody noticed, or the speaker moved too far from the mic and nobody listened, or the fridg came on and nobody heard. I just did a recording this morning and there was this issue with the producer who was wearing pants that made this very loud swish sound every time he moved. He didn't notice of course and if he had been shooting he wouldn't have heard it. We stopes so I could ratchet strap him in his chair. And he is a big guy for getting good sound.
I suspect that if I had been shooting I wouldn't have heard it either. VERY few problems with production sound are not clearly audible during recording by anyone who is really listening. And most of them would have been fixable at the time IF anybody had noticed them. Of the rest they are the rare equipment flaw or media error, and occasionally you will have a problem that is obvious but there is little one can do to mitigate it.
Thanks Noiz2[/QUOTE]

 

[chrisbernard]

Based on the examples you posted earlier in this thread I think a 12-35 is going to be more useful than an 85mm equivalent. Especially if you are only going to have one camera and one lens. 85mm is good for single person interview or close ups but you might not be able to get camera far enough away from the talent with a 42.5mm.

 

[andvx]

Based on the examples you posted earlier in this thread I think a 12-35 is going to be more useful than an 85mm equivalent. Especially if you are only going to have one camera and one lens. 85mm is good for single person interview or close ups but you might not be able to get camera far enough away from the talent with a 42.5mm.

Hi Chris,
Thanks for the suggestion. I am steering towards the 12-35mm instead of the 42.5mm for a few reasons. One is the distance from the subject you just mentioned, and the other is that with 4K video (primary usage), something like a 42.5mm Nocticron will be overkill.


Thanks

 

[andvx]

I would listen to others on lighting as my lighting experience is mostly with theatre. I probably wouldn't try doing fancy lighting for an interview. I cary the LED's because I have found that sometimes there just isn't enough light or the light is really ugly. So I'm generally just trying to supplement or correct what is already there. Doing more than that starts to get into more work than I want to do on these personal projects.

I am looking into lighting and will experiment with the different lighting options. A portable lighting source that could be a workable and portable option is the Travor Light Stick (http://www.travor.cn/en/show.php?id=54). It's only about $150 or so.

What I found with my self is what I have seen with others. You can't really hear and see at the same time, at least not critically. So if I'm shooting I don't notice 90% of the things I would have noticed if I were recording. It's also why I'm almost never looking at the action while I'm recording, unless of course I'm also booming. But then I'm looking for mic placement and not at the action so really both are sound related.

My best guess is that if you work really hard at it you can probably learn to split attention so neither is "bad", but then neither is all it could be either. It comes down to what the needs are and what compromises you are willing to make. For me at this time shooting I can compromise the sound because I'm learning the camera and I can work around the sound and none of these projects are being funded except out of my pocket as a learning tool. If I had plans to do a show that others were going to see or I was trying to sell I would use a crew.

Well noted; thanks.