Question for the Experienced filmmmaker/vidoemaker.

I have been pitched an idea for a genre blending filmmaking project
and have given the filmmaker the green light on a low budget feature
(to be shot on mini-dv).

For story/aesthetic/logistic reasons the microphone HAS to stay on the
camera. I am experienced enough to know that the BANE of indie/low
budget film is poor audio.

What camera/audio set-up would people recommend. I have done extensive
google research and have read the sound on a lot of mini-dv units is
poor. The VX-2000/PD-150 hiss issue, cameras with undefeatable audio
gain, etc., etc.,

It seems the picture quality will be in the same ballpark for the
majority of pro-sumer cameras but the audio won't. Keep in mind this
feature will have a budget of less than 3K so saying hire a sound guy
to follow your director/cameraman (the same person) around will not
help.

The 3K is coming out of my pocket so I want to give the filmmaker (and
myself) the best chance of doing it right given the limitations.

The mic has to stay on the camera issue is integral part of the style
of shooting the filmmaker will be doing and helps the story
aesthetically.

I want good sound. What is the consensus?

DM

Deal Maker wrote:

What camera/audio set-up would people recommend. I have done extensive
google research and have read the sound on a lot of mini-dv units is
poor. The VX-2000/PD-150 hiss issue, cameras with undefeatable audio
gain, etc., etc.,

It seems the picture quality will be in the same ballpark for the
majority of pro-sumer cameras but the audio won't.


In that pricerange, I'd look seriously into the Panasonic AG-DVX100
http://www.panasonic.com/PBDS/subcat...ag-dvx100.html

"Deal Maker" wrote in message
m...
Question for the Experienced filmmmaker/vidoemaker.

I have been pitched an idea for a genre blending filmmaking project
and have given the filmmaker the green light on a low budget feature
(to be shot on mini-dv).

For story/aesthetic/logistic reasons the microphone HAS to stay on the
camera. I am experienced enough to know that the BANE of indie/low
budget film is poor audio.

What camera/audio set-up would people recommend. I have done extensive
google research and have read the sound on a lot of mini-dv units is
poor. The VX-2000/PD-150 hiss issue, cameras with undefeatable audio
gain, etc., etc.,

It seems the picture quality will be in the same ballpark for the
majority of pro-sumer cameras but the audio won't. Keep in mind this
feature will have a budget of less than 3K so saying hire a sound guy
to follow your director/cameraman (the same person) around will not
help.

The 3K is coming out of my pocket so I want to give the filmmaker (and
myself) the best chance of doing it right given the limitations.

The mic has to stay on the camera issue is integral part of the style
of shooting the filmmaker will be doing and helps the story
aesthetically.

I want good sound. What is the consensus?

DM

Don't put the mic on the camera.
A sane person without experience is a better bet than an on-camera mic.

There is no aesthetic benefit obtainable from an on camera mic. You can add
noise, or create controllable modifications, to a clean soundtrack much more
easily than you can clean a dirty one.

If the mic is staying on the camera, then the chances are it will sound like
crap, irresspective of what the mic is. Fact.

Good luck though,

Simon B


"Deal Maker" wrote in message
m...
Question for the Experienced filmmmaker/vidoemaker.

I have been pitched an idea for a genre blending filmmaking project
and have given the filmmaker the green light on a low budget feature
(to be shot on mini-dv).

For story/aesthetic/logistic reasons the microphone HAS to stay on the
camera. I am experienced enough to know that the BANE of indie/low
budget film is poor audio.

What camera/audio set-up would people recommend. I have done extensive
google research and have read the sound on a lot of mini-dv units is
poor. The VX-2000/PD-150 hiss issue, cameras with undefeatable audio
gain, etc., etc.,

It seems the picture quality will be in the same ballpark for the
majority of pro-sumer cameras but the audio won't. Keep in mind this
feature will have a budget of less than 3K so saying hire a sound guy
to follow your director/cameraman (the same person) around will not
help.

The 3K is coming out of my pocket so I want to give the filmmaker (and
myself) the best chance of doing it right given the limitations.

The mic has to stay on the camera issue is integral part of the style
of shooting the filmmaker will be doing and helps the story
aesthetically.

I want good sound. What is the consensus?

DM

The mic has to stay on the camera issue is integral part of the style
of shooting the filmmaker will be doing and helps the story
aesthetically.

I want good sound. What is the consensus?

You must do your shooting:

a) either in acoustically-treated studios with no echo, and with the
camera within 4' of the actors' mouths,

or

b) in normal rooms with the camera within 2' of the actors' mouths,

or

c) outdoors and far from buildings and other reflectors, with the actors
really projecting, and the camera within about 6' of their mouths.

These options will actually work, assuming you've got a good quality mic
and take levels carefully. Otherwise, what you've set up here is akin to
saying "the actors have to keep their rears to the camera and wear masks
for aesthetic reasons, and I want to see their faces clearly".

Look: nobody wants to save money more than feature film producers. If they
could eliminate the boom op and still get good sound, they would have done
so years ago. If you can't afford a boom (or are scared of long sticks)
and want good sound, use lavs. Or keep the actors in one place and use
plants. Or realize that the camera-and-mic will have to be in the actors'
faces.

What, exactly, is your objection to gathering sound using the physical
principles that Hollywood has acknowledged for the past 75 years?

--
Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com

The 3K is coming out of my pocket so I want to give the filmmaker (and
myself) the best chance of doing it right given the limitations.

Miracle workers: After you have successfully pulled this one off,
please help me with my problem.

I am in desparate need of an exotic european sports car capable of
250mph and the 3K is coming out of my pocket so I want...
Thanks in advance

I personally do not see the relationship between money and a boom guy.
Heck you can find a boom guy that will work for free if you scout a
university film program. Even if they don't entirely know what is going
on, you'll still get better sound, and they will get to learn, and
everyone is happy. Or, do you have any friends for pete's sakes? Let
one of them hold the boom!

Unless it is the cost of the boom itself that scares you...in which case
I'd have to scratch my head even more.

Deal Maker wrote:
Question for the Experienced filmmmaker/vidoemaker.

I have been pitched an idea for a genre blending filmmaking project
and have given the filmmaker the green light on a low budget feature
(to be shot on mini-dv).

For story/aesthetic/logistic reasons the microphone HAS to stay on the
camera. I am experienced enough to know that the BANE of indie/low
budget film is poor audio.

What camera/audio set-up would people recommend. I have done extensive
google research and have read the sound on a lot of mini-dv units is
poor. The VX-2000/PD-150 hiss issue, cameras with undefeatable audio
gain, etc., etc.,

It seems the picture quality will be in the same ballpark for the
majority of pro-sumer cameras but the audio won't. Keep in mind this
feature will have a budget of less than 3K so saying hire a sound guy
to follow your director/cameraman (the same person) around will not
help.

The 3K is coming out of my pocket so I want to give the filmmaker (and
myself) the best chance of doing it right given the limitations.

The mic has to stay on the camera issue is integral part of the style
of shooting the filmmaker will be doing and helps the story
aesthetically.

I want good sound. What is the consensus?

DM

The mic has to stay on the camera issue is integral part of the style
of shooting the filmmaker will be doing and helps the story
aesthetically.

I want good sound.

Won't happen, can't happen. With the mic mounted on the camera, expect
focus motor noise, cameraman noise, and lousy sound. Get an experienced
boom op. It's even more important than having an experienced mixer.
Think about it where does the sound come from? The mouth maybe; So get
the mic in through the lights, and as close as possible. Also know the
dialogue and have years of experience boomingt. OR use the camera mic
and have the sound suck, your choice.

Jaxon Bridge wrote in message ...

I personally do not see the relationship between money and a boom guy.
Heck you can find a boom guy that will work for free if you scout a
university film program. Even if they don't entirely know what is going
on, you'll still get better sound, and they will get to learn, and
everyone is happy. Or, do you have any friends for pete's sakes? Let
one of them hold the boom!

You can "find a boom guy that will work for free?"

Sure just any ole pair of hands will do huh?

Say hello to boom handling noise and bad mic placement.



Unless it is the cost of the boom itself that scares you...in which case
I'd have to scratch my head even more.

Deal Maker wrote:
Question for the Experienced filmmmaker/vidoemaker.

I have been pitched an idea for a genre blending filmmaking project
and have given the filmmaker the green light on a low budget feature
(to be shot on mini-dv).

For story/aesthetic/logistic reasons the microphone HAS to stay on the
camera. I am experienced enough to know that the BANE of indie/low
budget film is poor audio.

What camera/audio set-up would people recommend. I have done extensive
google research and have read the sound on a lot of mini-dv units is
poor. The VX-2000/PD-150 hiss issue, cameras with undefeatable audio
gain, etc., etc.,

It seems the picture quality will be in the same ballpark for the
majority of pro-sumer cameras but the audio won't. Keep in mind this
feature will have a budget of less than 3K so saying hire a sound guy
to follow your director/cameraman (the same person) around will not
help.

The 3K is coming out of my pocket so I want to give the filmmaker (and
myself) the best chance of doing it right given the limitations.

The mic has to stay on the camera issue is integral part of the style
of shooting the filmmaker will be doing and helps the story
aesthetically.

I want good sound. What is the consensus?

DM

Sure just any ole pair of hands will do huh?

No, not any ole pair, but a pair of careful and enthusiastic hands from
a university film program. They do exist, believe it or not.

Jaxon Bridge wrote:

Sure just any ole pair of hands will do huh?


No, not any ole pair, but a pair of careful and enthusiastic hands from
a university film program. They do exist, believe it or not.


Whoa. Hey gang, let's not leverage another useful discussion out of
perspective.

The point that someone made was not intended to discount the value of an
experienced boom operator. I don't think there would be much
disagreement that a top notch boom op is critical to top notch sound.
The point, as I took it, was that a pair of careful, though
inexperienced, hands on a boom pole would be MUCH preferable to an on
camera mic. I agree fully.

John Blankenship, Indianapolis (One more win and Superbowl bound)

Let's not underestimate the value of a good boom operator. I have had
producers suggest that "one of the PAs can boom for you". Sure. And
we will let him load mags and pull focus, too. Boom operators bring to
the set a specific set of skills that get better sound for the
project. Budget constraints shouldn't blind us to that.
The guy that booms for me is a valuable member of the sound
department who assists me in breaking down the needs for each scene.
He is always attentive to lighting and only needs a single rehearsal
to get blocking down.
In a worst-case scenario, I'd rather set up the cart and have
myself boom. I can take 60 seconds and teach someone to press the REC
button on my DEVA and call speed. I can't teach someone to be a good
boom operator in a minute. The only people that are good at it are
ones who are experienced.



Jaxon Bridge wrote in message ...
I personally do not see the relationship between money and a boom guy.
Heck you can find a boom guy that will work for free if you scout a
university film program. Even if they don't entirely know what is going
on, you'll still get better sound, and they will get to learn, and
everyone is happy. Or, do you have any friends for pete's sakes? Let
one of them hold the boom!

Unless it is the cost of the boom itself that scares you...in which case
I'd have to scratch my head even more.

I think some clarification would help:

From a visual/audio aesthetic standpoint think "Blair Witch" and "The
Celebration".

Image pumped up a notch over what they got with their single-ccd Hi-8
and single-ccd Mini-dv cameras, similar audio, at least aesthetically
similiar but hoping for the best that can be rung out of a possible
system.

Will rent the equipment:

The $3k is all I want to risk on the concept.

$1k of it is going to be spent as a token offering to a low B-level
name star for their 18 day shooting commitment (they love the script,
the project wouldn't get through page one with $3k if they didn't!)

The filmmaker is going to be the director/cameraman/sound and edit the
project.

So that said:

VX2100, VX2000, PD-150, DVX-100, XL-1 or GL-2 or ? The list goes on.

What camera set-up and external mic will deliver the most out of the
above approach.

Canon XL-1 and an Audio Technica Shotgun in a shock mount perhaps?

Lets have some discussion, I am sure others can benefit from this
topic besides myself.

DM


(Deal Maker) wrote in message om...
Question for the Experienced filmmmaker/vidoemaker.

I have been pitched an idea for a genre blending filmmaking project
and have given the filmmaker the green light on a low budget feature
(to be shot on mini-dv).

For story/aesthetic/logistic reasons the microphone HAS to stay on the
camera. I am experienced enough to know that the BANE of indie/low
budget film is poor audio.

What camera/audio set-up would people recommend. I have done extensive
google research and have read the sound on a lot of mini-dv units is
poor. The VX-2000/PD-150 hiss issue, cameras with undefeatable audio
gain, etc., etc.,

It seems the picture quality will be in the same ballpark for the
majority of pro-sumer cameras but the audio won't. Keep in mind this
feature will have a budget of less than 3K so saying hire a sound guy
to follow your director/cameraman (the same person) around will not
help.

The 3K is coming out of my pocket so I want to give the filmmaker (and
myself) the best chance of doing it right given the limitations.

The mic has to stay on the camera issue is integral part of the style
of shooting the filmmaker will be doing and helps the story
aesthetically.

I want good sound. What is the consensus?

DM

I think some clarification would help:

From a visual/audio aesthetic standpoint think "Blair Witch" and "The
Celebration".

Image pumped up a notch over what they got with their single-ccd Hi-8
and single-ccd Mini-dv cameras, similar audio, at least aesthetically
similiar but hoping for the best that can be rung out of a possible
system.

Will rent the equipment:

The $3k is all I want to risk on the concept.

$1k of it is going to be spent as a token offering to a low B-level
name star for their 18 day shooting commitment (they love the script,
the project wouldn't get through page one with $3k if they didn't!)

The filmmaker is going to be the director/cameraman/sound and edit the
project.

So that said:

VX2100, VX2000, PD-150, DVX-100, XL-1 or GL-2 or ? The list goes on.

What camera set-up and external mic will deliver the most out of the
above approach.

Canon XL-1 and an Audio Technica Shotgun in a shock mount perhaps?

Lets have some discussion, I am sure others can benefit from this
topic besides myself.

DM



(Deal Maker) wrote in message om...
Question for the Experienced filmmmaker/vidoemaker.

I have been pitched an idea for a genre blending filmmaking project
and have given the filmmaker the green light on a low budget feature
(to be shot on mini-dv).

For story/aesthetic/logistic reasons the microphone HAS to stay on the
camera. I am experienced enough to know that the BANE of indie/low
budget film is poor audio.

What camera/audio set-up would people recommend. I have done extensive
google research and have read the sound on a lot of mini-dv units is
poor. The VX-2000/PD-150 hiss issue, cameras with undefeatable audio
gain, etc., etc.,

It seems the picture quality will be in the same ballpark for the
majority of pro-sumer cameras but the audio won't. Keep in mind this
feature will have a budget of less than 3K so saying hire a sound guy
to follow your director/cameraman (the same person) around will not
help.

The 3K is coming out of my pocket so I want to give the filmmaker (and
myself) the best chance of doing it right given the limitations.

The mic has to stay on the camera issue is integral part of the style
of shooting the filmmaker will be doing and helps the story
aesthetically.

I want good sound. What is the consensus?

DM

The filmmaker is going to be the director/cameraman/sound and edit the
project.

I don't know how much you know about lighting, composition, and the other
things that make up decent camera work. But judging from your sincere
questions in these NGs, it's probable you don't know much about sound.

This is not, of itself, a problem. I work with plenty of directors who
aren't knowledgable about sound, and get someone else to take care of it.
There are plenty others who don't know the mechanics of getting an image;
they trust their DPs and worry about the storytelling instead.

But you're setting yourself up to have to worry about sound and picture at
the same time you're trying to tell a story as director. That's a heck of
a distraction level even for a seasoned professional. Do you really
believe you'll be able to give directing your best efforts?


VX2100, VX2000, PD-150, DVX-100, XL-1 or GL-2 or ? The list goes on.

What camera set-up and external mic will deliver the most out of the
above approach.

Go to DV.com (free, non-spamming registration). I've done serious sound
evaluations of most of the cameras you list, using lab equipment, and
published the findings there. I'm not going to select one of those cameras
for you here; there are too many things you have to take into account.
Read the articles.

You'll also find lots of articles and tutorials on camera work, sound, and
guerrilla filmmaking.

--
Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com

Thanks,

In response to an e-mail,

From the Dogme 95 "Vows of Chastity"


"2. The sound must never be produced apart from the image or vice
versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is
being shot.)

"3. The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility
attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place
where the camera is standing; shooting must take place where the film
takes place.)

"4. The film must be in color. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If
there is too little light for exposure, the scene must be cut or a
single lamp [must] be attached to the camera.)

Yes, these would be the only three "rules" we would be following.

DM

(Deal Maker) wrote in message om...
Question for the Experienced filmmmaker/vidoemaker.

I have been pitched an idea for a genre blending filmmaking project
and have given the filmmaker the green light on a low budget feature
(to be shot on mini-dv).

For story/aesthetic/logistic reasons the microphone HAS to stay on the
camera. I am experienced enough to know that the BANE of indie/low
budget film is poor audio.

What camera/audio set-up would people recommend. I have done extensive
google research and have read the sound on a lot of mini-dv units is
poor. The VX-2000/PD-150 hiss issue, cameras with undefeatable audio
gain, etc., etc.,

It seems the picture quality will be in the same ballpark for the
majority of pro-sumer cameras but the audio won't. Keep in mind this
feature will have a budget of less than 3K so saying hire a sound guy
to follow your director/cameraman (the same person) around will not
help.

The 3K is coming out of my pocket so I want to give the filmmaker (and
myself) the best chance of doing it right given the limitations.

The mic has to stay on the camera issue is integral part of the style
of shooting the filmmaker will be doing and helps the story
aesthetically.

I want good sound. What is the consensus?

DM

So...get a student who is "interested in the project" (read "will work
for free"), give him/her a long stick...not necessarily a boompole,
gaffer tape that Audio Technica mic on the end of it and point it in the
diredtion of the shooting!

It WILL give better results than the on-camera mic.

-Jason

Deal Maker wrote:

Thanks,

In response to an e-mail,

From the Dogme 95 "Vows of Chastity"


"2. The sound must never be produced apart from the image or vice
versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is
being shot.)

(Deal Maker) wrote in message om...
I think some clarification would help:

From a visual/audio aesthetic standpoint think "Blair Witch" and "The
Celebration".

Image pumped up a notch over what they got with their single-ccd Hi-8
and single-ccd Mini-dv cameras, similar audio, at least aesthetically
similiar but hoping for the best that can be rung out of a possible
system.

Will rent the equipment:

The $3k is all I want to risk on the concept.

$1k of it is going to be spent as a token offering to a low B-level
name star for their 18 day shooting commitment (they love the script,
the project wouldn't get through page one with $3k if they didn't!)

The filmmaker is going to be the director/cameraman/sound and edit the
project.

So that said:

VX2100, VX2000, PD-150, DVX-100, XL-1 or GL-2 or ? The list goes on.

What camera set-up and external mic will deliver the most out of the
above approach.

Canon XL-1 and an Audio Technica Shotgun in a shock mount perhaps?

Yeah, that sounds about right. Keep in mind that using the zoom motor
on an XL-1 will be heard by the camera mic, so test the shotgun on
mount if you go that way. Also, you gotta be careful about camera
handling noise. I've seen very successful sound recorded from the
shotgun on mount on camera approach. I just bought an AT shotgun mic
for like $60. that has good range, and 2 pattern settings.


Lets have some discussion, I am sure others can benefit from this
topic besides myself.

DM


(Deal Maker) wrote in message om...
Question for the Experienced filmmmaker/vidoemaker.

I have been pitched an idea for a genre blending filmmaking project
and have given the filmmaker the green light on a low budget feature
(to be shot on mini-dv).

For story/aesthetic/logistic reasons the microphone HAS to stay on the
camera. I am experienced enough to know that the BANE of indie/low
budget film is poor audio.

What camera/audio set-up would people recommend. I have done extensive
google research and have read the sound on a lot of mini-dv units is
poor. The VX-2000/PD-150 hiss issue, cameras with undefeatable audio
gain, etc., etc.,

It seems the picture quality will be in the same ballpark for the
majority of pro-sumer cameras but the audio won't. Keep in mind this
feature will have a budget of less than 3K so saying hire a sound guy
to follow your director/cameraman (the same person) around will not
help.

The 3K is coming out of my pocket so I want to give the filmmaker (and
myself) the best chance of doing it right given the limitations.

The mic has to stay on the camera issue is integral part of the style
of shooting the filmmaker will be doing and helps the story
aesthetically.

I want good sound. What is the consensus?

DM

"Deal Maker" wrote in message
m...
I think some clarification would help:

From a visual/audio aesthetic standpoint think "Blair Witch" and "The
Celebration".

Image pumped up a notch over what they got with their single-ccd Hi-8
and single-ccd Mini-dv cameras, similar audio, at least aesthetically
similiar but hoping for the best that can be rung out of a possible
system.

Will rent the equipment:

The $3k is all I want to risk on the concept.

Penny-wise and pound foolish.
You're risking the entire project on one notion: that the sound obtained
on-camera will be suitable.
By simple inclusion of a kid with a broomstick, you have the option to make
the sound anything you want, in post.

Defying the established wisdom will probably doom the result, causing you to
wonder why you didn't elect to spend $3500 instead.

Hold on, the person was asking about camera set-ups that would give his
filmmaker the best sound with a camera mounted microphone.

Why don't we address his question instead of saying "no, don't do it that way".

Maybe he wants the "audio aesthetic" of the image/audio appearing to be coming
from an "on location camera". That is what it will sound like without covering
the directionality of sound.

The question was, what would give the best sound, given the set-up?

We don't know the story premise so instead of attacking the method let's talk
about the original question.

That is what it will sound like. It sounds like that is what he is trying.

My guess would be any good shotgun in a suspended elastic mount (to reduce
camera noise) would do the trick.

Canon Xl-1 allows XLR equipment which will help.

Maybe go with a XL-1 and a Sennheiser shotgun, since you are renting.

Arri Owner

"Arriflex16sr" wrote in message
...
Hold on, the person was asking about camera set-ups that would give his
filmmaker the best sound with a camera mounted microphone.

Why don't we address his question instead of saying "no, don't do it that
way".

Maybe he wants the "audio aesthetic" of the image/audio appearing to be
coming
from an "on location camera". That is what it will sound like without
covering
the directionality of sound.

The audio aesthetic can be supplied by manipulating in post.
It's always preferable to start with a clean soundtrack. He can throw camera
noise on top of it later.

The problem is, what he wants to do is extremely risky. His desire is naive.
If he was a pro, then there's a chance his desire comes from experience and
wisdom. But no, it's this magic figure of $3000 that he's willing to blow.
Later on, he'll wish he went for the high school kid with the mic taped to a
broomstick.

The question was, what would give the best sound, given the set-up?
Really a difficult question for us to ask, since it's not likely that any of
us have ever depended upon an on-camera mike to shoot a movie. By supplying
an answer, we become complicit in the failure of the project.

We don't know the story premise so instead of attacking the method let's
talk
about the original question.

The wisdom of 70 years says this is a really bad idea.

Okay,

I thought we would get more opinions, helping myself and others.

Yes, the concept dictates that the footage have the aesthetic look and
aesthetic sound of footage shot from a camera with the microphone on
the camera.

It's just, I'd like the filmmaker to get the best sound out of this
set-up.

So Canon XL-1 and a good shotgun in an elastic, suspended shock mount?

Am I missing something?

Thanks.

DM


(Deal Maker) wrote in message om...
I think some clarification would help:

From a visual/audio aesthetic standpoint think "Blair Witch" and "The
Celebration".

Image pumped up a notch over what they got with their single-ccd Hi-8
and single-ccd Mini-dv cameras, similar audio, at least aesthetically
similiar but hoping for the best that can be rung out of a possible
system.

Will rent the equipment:

The $3k is all I want to risk on the concept.

$1k of it is going to be spent as a token offering to a low B-level
name star for their 18 day shooting commitment (they love the script,
the project wouldn't get through page one with $3k if they didn't!)

The filmmaker is going to be the director/cameraman/sound and edit the
project.

So that said:

VX2100, VX2000, PD-150, DVX-100, XL-1 or GL-2 or ? The list goes on.

What camera set-up and external mic will deliver the most out of the
above approach.

Canon XL-1 and an Audio Technica Shotgun in a shock mount perhaps?

Lets have some discussion, I am sure others can benefit from this
topic besides myself.

DM



(Deal Maker) wrote in message om...
Question for the Experienced filmmmaker/vidoemaker.

I have been pitched an idea for a genre blending filmmaking project
and have given the filmmaker the green light on a low budget feature
(to be shot on mini-dv).

For story/aesthetic/logistic reasons the microphone HAS to stay on the
camera. I am experienced enough to know that the BANE of indie/low
budget film is poor audio.

What camera/audio set-up would people recommend. I have done extensive
google research and have read the sound on a lot of mini-dv units is
poor. The VX-2000/PD-150 hiss issue, cameras with undefeatable audio
gain, etc., etc.,

It seems the picture quality will be in the same ballpark for the
majority of pro-sumer cameras but the audio won't. Keep in mind this
feature will have a budget of less than 3K so saying hire a sound guy
to follow your director/cameraman (the same person) around will not
help.

The 3K is coming out of my pocket so I want to give the filmmaker (and
myself) the best chance of doing it right given the limitations.

The mic has to stay on the camera issue is integral part of the style
of shooting the filmmaker will be doing and helps the story
aesthetically.

I want good sound. What is the consensus?

DM

I think that you can keep the shotgun money for the sandwiches since the
"unique" position on the camera will give you exactly the same as one that
already come with .
keep the money for better salami, its hard to work on empty stomach
--
Oleg Kaizerman (gebe) Hollyland What the simple man need -a peas of white
brad and the caviar could be black


"
Am I missing something?

Thanks.

DM


(Deal Maker) wrote in message
om...
I think some clarification would help:

From a visual/audio aesthetic standpoint think "Blair Witch" and "The
Celebration".

Image pumped up a notch over what they got with their single-ccd Hi-8
and single-ccd Mini-dv cameras, similar audio, at least aesthetically
similiar but hoping for the best that can be rung out of a possible
system.

Will rent the equipment:

The $3k is all I want to risk on the concept.

$1k of it is going to be spent as a token offering to a low B-level
name star for their 18 day shooting commitment (they love the script,
the project wouldn't get through page one with $3k if they didn't!)

The filmmaker is going to be the director/cameraman/sound and edit the
project.

So that said:

VX2100, VX2000, PD-150, DVX-100, XL-1 or GL-2 or ? The list goes on.

What camera set-up and external mic will deliver the most out of the
above approach.

Canon XL-1 and an Audio Technica Shotgun in a shock mount perhaps?

Lets have some discussion, I am sure others can benefit from this
topic besides myself.

DM



(Deal Maker) wrote in message
om...
Question for the Experienced filmmmaker/vidoemaker.

I have been pitched an idea for a genre blending filmmaking project
and have given the filmmaker the green light on a low budget feature
(to be shot on mini-dv).

For story/aesthetic/logistic reasons the microphone HAS to stay on the
camera. I am experienced enough to know that the BANE of indie/low
budget film is poor audio.

What camera/audio set-up would people recommend. I have done extensive
google research and have read the sound on a lot of mini-dv units is
poor. The VX-2000/PD-150 hiss issue, cameras with undefeatable audio
gain, etc., etc.,

It seems the picture quality will be in the same ballpark for the
majority of pro-sumer cameras but the audio won't. Keep in mind this
feature will have a budget of less than 3K so saying hire a sound guy
to follow your director/cameraman (the same person) around will not
help.

The 3K is coming out of my pocket so I want to give the filmmaker (and
myself) the best chance of doing it right given the limitations.

The mic has to stay on the camera issue is integral part of the style
of shooting the filmmaker will be doing and helps the story
aesthetically.

I want good sound. What is the consensus?

DM

"Deal Maker" wrote in message
om...
Okay,

I thought we would get more opinions, helping myself and others.

Yes, the concept dictates that the footage have the aesthetic look and
aesthetic sound of footage shot from a camera with the microphone on
the camera.

It's just, I'd like the filmmaker to get the best sound out of this
set-up.

So Canon XL-1 and a good shotgun in an elastic, suspended shock mount?

Am I missing something?

Thanks.

DM

Yes, you are.

The sound aesthetic you desire can be obtained by a mike on a boom pole.
Because of the miracle of post processing, it can be made to sound as if
it's coming from any camera you want, or a telephone, walkie talkie, hidden
mic, or speaker's podium.
All this can be done in a controlled fashion on an ordinary PC.
But with the mic on the camera, you're stuck with what you get. Should there
be a problem with intelligibility or grunge, or whine, or mic quality, it
will be incorrectible.

I've fooled around with the most sophisticated plugins for sound
subtraction. None of them work as well as one would wish.

I've fooled around with the most sophisticated plugins for sound
subtraction. None of them work as well as one would wish.

Does 'dogme' even let you use plugins for post?


(P.S.: Try Cedar Retouch. It works as advertised... but takes a heck of a
long time to use.)

--
Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com

Yep....
Good, useable sound.

--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"Deal Maker" wrote in message
om...
Okay,

I thought we would get more opinions, helping myself and others.

Yes, the concept dictates that the footage have the aesthetic look and
aesthetic sound of footage shot from a camera with the microphone on
the camera.

It's just, I'd like the filmmaker to get the best sound out of this
set-up.

So Canon XL-1 and a good shotgun in an elastic, suspended shock mount?

Am I missing something?

Thanks.

DM


(Deal Maker) wrote in message
om...
I think some clarification would help:

From a visual/audio aesthetic standpoint think "Blair Witch" and "The
Celebration".

Image pumped up a notch over what they got with their single-ccd Hi-8
and single-ccd Mini-dv cameras, similar audio, at least aesthetically
similiar but hoping for the best that can be rung out of a possible
system.

Will rent the equipment:

The $3k is all I want to risk on the concept.

$1k of it is going to be spent as a token offering to a low B-level
name star for their 18 day shooting commitment (they love the script,
the project wouldn't get through page one with $3k if they didn't!)

The filmmaker is going to be the director/cameraman/sound and edit the
project.

So that said:

VX2100, VX2000, PD-150, DVX-100, XL-1 or GL-2 or ? The list goes on.

What camera set-up and external mic will deliver the most out of the
above approach.

Canon XL-1 and an Audio Technica Shotgun in a shock mount perhaps?

Lets have some discussion, I am sure others can benefit from this
topic besides myself.

DM



(Deal Maker) wrote in message
om...
Question for the Experienced filmmmaker/vidoemaker.

I have been pitched an idea for a genre blending filmmaking project
and have given the filmmaker the green light on a low budget feature
(to be shot on mini-dv).

For story/aesthetic/logistic reasons the microphone HAS to stay on the
camera. I am experienced enough to know that the BANE of indie/low
budget film is poor audio.

What camera/audio set-up would people recommend. I have done extensive
google research and have read the sound on a lot of mini-dv units is
poor. The VX-2000/PD-150 hiss issue, cameras with undefeatable audio
gain, etc., etc.,

It seems the picture quality will be in the same ballpark for the
majority of pro-sumer cameras but the audio won't. Keep in mind this
feature will have a budget of less than 3K so saying hire a sound guy
to follow your director/cameraman (the same person) around will not
help.

The 3K is coming out of my pocket so I want to give the filmmaker (and
myself) the best chance of doing it right given the limitations.

The mic has to stay on the camera issue is integral part of the style
of shooting the filmmaker will be doing and helps the story
aesthetically.

I want good sound. What is the consensus?

DM

"Jay Rose CAS" wrote in message
...

I've fooled around with the most sophisticated plugins for sound
subtraction. None of them work as well as one would wish.

Does 'dogme' even let you use plugins for post?


(P.S.: Try Cedar Retouch. It works as advertised... but takes a heck of a
long time to use.)

I used ARS. Can you make a comparison?

Deal Maker wrote:

I thought we would get more opinions, helping myself and others.
(SNIP
Am I missing something?

Apparently, yes, you are missing something. What you are missing is
that your initial question has been answered by many people. You've
chosen to ignore that answer.

In your initial question, you did not mention that the film was "Dogme."

That changes the equation a bit, but not too much. As I understand it,
with "Dogme" you're allowed to break the rules as long as you state what
rules you've broken. I don't think anyone would dis you for listing
that sound was recorded by a kid holding a paint pole. You're still
meeting the primary goal of documenting what occurred in the actual
space at the actual time the film was created.

One thing that hasn't been covered as thoroughly as using a boom pole is
the acoustics of the spaces you're in. That's critical for the type of
production you're doing -- or any production for that matter. For your
locations choose places that are not very "live" which means they don't
have much room reverb or echo. Walk into the location and clap your
hands. If you hear much sound beyond the initial clap -- such as the
decay of the original sound, echos, flutter echos, or expignant noises
-- then choose another location.

Listen for extraneous sounds such as air conditioning, fridges, traffic,
etc., then, choose your location based upon ambient sound that enhances
the film rather than injures it.

Remember, that for wise advice to work, someone has to be wise enough to
take that advice.

Good luck,
John Blankenship, Indianapolis

DM,
FYI, I played today with a Panasonic DVX-80 with a Sanken CS-1 in the
Panasonic shock mount.

It was quite possibly the worst thing I have listened to in a while.
The cruddy headphone amps notwithstanding (I didn't bother listening to
a playback..), the handling noise of the camera that was transmitted
through to the mic was incredible!

I could hear every release of the zoom control, every time my hand slid
around on the body, every rub on the handle (if you did it "right" you
could completely overload the mic pre!).

My advice, rent your intended setup for a day. Try it out, see if you
can get it to sound the way you need it to sound.

---Matt
Chicago, IL

Deal Maker wrote:

Okay,

I thought we would get more opinions, helping myself and others.

Yes, the concept dictates that the footage have the aesthetic look and
aesthetic sound of footage shot from a camera with the microphone on
the camera.

It's just, I'd like the filmmaker to get the best sound out of this
set-up.

So Canon XL-1 and a good shotgun in an elastic, suspended shock mount?

Am I missing something?

Thanks.

DM

(Deal Maker) wrote in message om...
I think some clarification would help:

From a visual/audio aesthetic standpoint think "Blair Witch" and "The
Celebration".

Image pumped up a notch over what they got with their single-ccd Hi-8
and single-ccd Mini-dv cameras, similar audio, at least aesthetically
similiar but hoping for the best that can be rung out of a possible
system.

Will rent the equipment:

The $3k is all I want to risk on the concept.

$1k of it is going to be spent as a token offering to a low B-level
name star for their 18 day shooting commitment (they love the script,
the project wouldn't get through page one with $3k if they didn't!)

The filmmaker is going to be the director/cameraman/sound and edit the
project.

So that said:

VX2100, VX2000, PD-150, DVX-100, XL-1 or GL-2 or ? The list goes on.

What camera set-up and external mic will deliver the most out of the
above approach.

Canon XL-1 and an Audio Technica Shotgun in a shock mount perhaps?

Lets have some discussion, I am sure others can benefit from this
topic besides myself.

DM



(Deal Maker) wrote in message om...
Question for the Experienced filmmmaker/vidoemaker.

I have been pitched an idea for a genre blending filmmaking project
and have given the filmmaker the green light on a low budget feature
(to be shot on mini-dv).

For story/aesthetic/logistic reasons the microphone HAS to stay on the
camera. I am experienced enough to know that the BANE of indie/low
budget film is poor audio.

What camera/audio set-up would people recommend. I have done extensive
google research and have read the sound on a lot of mini-dv units is
poor. The VX-2000/PD-150 hiss issue, cameras with undefeatable audio
gain, etc., etc.,

It seems the picture quality will be in the same ballpark for the
majority of pro-sumer cameras but the audio won't. Keep in mind this
feature will have a budget of less than 3K so saying hire a sound guy
to follow your director/cameraman (the same person) around will not
help.

The 3K is coming out of my pocket so I want to give the filmmaker (and
myself) the best chance of doing it right given the limitations.

The mic has to stay on the camera issue is integral part of the style
of shooting the filmmaker will be doing and helps the story
aesthetically.

I want good sound. What is the consensus?

DM

It was quite possibly the worst thing I have listened to in a while.
The cruddy headphone amps notwithstanding (I didn't bother listening to
a playback..)...

On a lot of cameras I've tested, the headphone amps are better than the
playback. To avoid latency, they don't consider the ADC/DAC stage... which
can be horribly bandwidth-limited.

--
Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com

Robert,

Okay, I now understand your arguement.

Acquire the highest quality sound at the onset, then degrade as needed.

Good methodology.

Thank you.

DM


"Robert Morein" wrote in message ...
"Deal Maker" wrote in message

snip

So Canon XL-1 and a good shotgun in an elastic, suspended shock mount?

Am I missing something?

Thanks.

DM

Yes, you are.

The sound aesthetic you desire can be obtained by a mike on a boom pole.
Because of the miracle of post processing, it can be made to sound as if
it's coming from any camera you want, or a telephone, walkie talkie, hidden
mic, or speaker's podium.
All this can be done in a controlled fashion on an ordinary PC.
But with the mic on the camera, you're stuck with what you get. Should there
be a problem with intelligibility or grunge, or whine, or mic quality, it
will be incorrectible.

I've fooled around with the most sophisticated plugins for sound
subtraction. None of them work as well as one would wish.

(Deal Maker) wrote in message . com...
Thanks,

In response to an e-mail,

From the Dogme 95 "Vows of Chastity"


"2. The sound must never be produced apart from the image or vice
versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is
being shot.)


They are talking about direct sound instead of overdubbed sound, and I
think it prohibited L cuts and inserts/cutaways as Jay Rose suggested
(they usually got around this by shooting with 3 cameras
simultaneously)

All the Dogme films were filmed with meticulous attention to location
sound, and it's no coincidence that they were all shot in rural
locations (the first 4 anyway)

And they used Lavs and booms, not camera mics, you can even SEE the
boom drop into shot in one scene of "The Idiots"


"3. The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility
attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place
where the camera is standing; shooting must take place where the film
takes place.)

"4. The film must be in color. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If
there is too little light for exposure, the scene must be cut or a
single lamp [must] be attached to the camera.)

Yes, these would be the only three "rules" we would be following.

DM



what's the point in only following 3?

I notice the three rules you've chosen are specifically the three that
make production cheaper and easier, at the expense of quality...

They are actually the easiest to follow - most 1st year student films
don't light, shoot everything with natural light and don't separate
image from sound, unless to replace the soundtrack completely with
music.

If you ant to know who this film will sound, watch "Jackass". Is that
the aesthetic approach your director wants?


Dylan

On 1/15/04 10:26 AM, in article
, "Deal Maker"
wrote:

Question for the Experienced filmmmaker/vidoemaker.

I have been pitched an idea for a genre blending filmmaking project
and have given the filmmaker the green light on a low budget feature
(to be shot on mini-dv).

For story/aesthetic/logistic reasons the microphone HAS to stay on the
camera. I am experienced enough to know that the BANE of indie/low
budget film is poor audio.


My own experience in film production over the last ten or more years has
been almost exclusively with scripted productions. Even my one experience
working with the Canon XL-1 was a regular show with a script super, 1st and
2nd A.D.¹s, etc. But I have some documentary work in my background so, with
some trepidation, I¹ll wade into this morass.

I think that ³DealMaker² has been ill served by many of the replies that
take him to task for failing to commit the resources necessary to reliably
accomplish good sound recording. The technical aspects of making a movie are
only a part of the enterprise and, arguably, not the most important one.
Having an interesting story or experience to relate and showing it with a
distinctive point of view is always the most important element. If the
camerawork is shakey or sound is thin but the on-screen events are
compelling, then people with watch. News footage is an obvious example. Of
course, audiences do get tired and annoyed by blurry images and straining to
pick words out of a noisy environment so professionals try to make the
experience as pleasant and effortless as they can.

Sometimes a very low profile and amateur appearance is the very thing that
permits the videographer to record remarkable things. A documentary about
urban street gangs, or a political campaign film made riding in the bus with
the candidate, might be a great thing. Two and three man crews have done
this kind of work before but one person with a small camera might get more
intimate and casual access than even a small crew. That doesn¹t necessarily
make for a better film than the bigger crew but it might be a different one
in other ways than the obvious technical ones.

Some of my colleagues have suggested a careful evaluation of the wisdom of
making the project at all. Guys, I respectfully suggest that this might not
be behavior we would want to encourage. Looking back over my career, I can
clearly see that at least half of the films I¹ve worked would never have
been made if the producer had exercised good sense (and I would have been
unable to earn a living). Praise be for producers with more money than
sense! Moreover, judging which enterprise is likely to be successful is a
perilous enterprise. Who among us would have ³greenlighted² the recent film
³Spelling Bee?² Or the HBO film ³Conspiracy² about the Wannsee Conference?

And, any foolish enterprise may be the genesis of something better to come.
Trying to write a script from a book about poaching orchids is (probably) a
doomed undertaking. But the film about trying to write that script has
enjoyed great success. Every project a producer makes is a learning
experience for all the participants. In this case, ³DealMaker² will hazard
only $3000. At worst, he may have an unwatchable film for little more than
what Orsen Welles would spend on a few lunches. He¹ll learn about what works
and what doesn¹t and he¹ll keep an otherwise layabout videographer off the
streets.

My technical advice is simple.

1.I don¹t know what is the very best microphone for this undertaking but
more good documentary work has been done with the Sennheiser MKH 416 short
shotgun mike than almost anything else. At the very least, any microphone
candidates should be auditioned in competition with the Sennheiser. Better,
acquire the power supplies and adapters that permit using the Sennheiser
with the camera of choice and don¹t look back.

2. Have a machinist make a custom bracket to hold the microphone above the
camera, as far as possible away from zoom motors, etc. Ideally it might be
extendable so it could be a short extension inside a car and longer when
working outdoors or in regular rooms. It should permit at least a foot of
extension; more is better.

3. Acquire a very good shockmount for the mike. I like the Panamic but that
may be too heavy for your application. The K-Tek mount looks very good.

4. As others have suggested, choose locations that are sound friendly. Any
production benefits from this advice.

5. Try to structure the filming style to keep the camera within four feet
(or less) of the subjects. The closer you work to the people talking, the
less wretched the sound will be. (notice I didn¹t say ³better²)

6. Alternately, keep the camera a discreet distance from the subjects. When
lip movements are not clearly seen, it¹s easy to replace sound with dialog
recorded later or with a subject voice over. Of course, this violates the
Dogma principal. If you must stick to the Dogma ideals, reread the comments,
above, about a fool and his money.

7. Most importantly, make tests with the selected equipment under
circumstances that closely approximate working conditions. Jettison the
approaches that don¹t work and refine those that do.

I hope this helps. I'll be interested to hear how it all turns out. (But I
think I probably already know.)

David Waelder

David Waelder wrote:

Sometimes a very low profile and amateur appearance is the very thing that
permits the videographer to record remarkable things. A documentary about
urban street gangs, or a political campaign film made riding in the bus with
the candidate, might be a great thing. Two and three man crews have done
this kind of work before but one person with a small camera might get more
intimate and casual access than even a small crew. That doesn¹t necessarily
make for a better film than the bigger crew but it might be a different one
in other ways than the obvious technical ones.
...
My technical advice is simple.
...
2. Have a machinist make a custom bracket to hold the microphone above the
camera, as far as possible away from zoom motors, etc. Ideally it might be
extendable so it could be a short extension inside a car and longer when
working outdoors or in regular rooms. It should permit at least a foot of
extension; more is better.

3. Acquire a very good shockmount for the mike. I like the Panamic but that
may be too heavy for your application. The K-Tek mount looks very good.


Thinking along these lines, I'd want a bracket that would put the zoom
motor and other noisy camera bits angled as close to the microphone null
as possible. In fact, I'm surprised someone like Lightwave hasn't come
up with a design like this already...

You could try an Ambient "Mini Mike" on the camera to get away from the
camera noise.
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"David Waelder" wrote in message
...
On 1/15/04 10:26 AM, in article
, "Deal Maker"
wrote:

Question for the Experienced filmmmaker/vidoemaker.

I have been pitched an idea for a genre blending filmmaking project
and have given the filmmaker the green light on a low budget feature
(to be shot on mini-dv).

For story/aesthetic/logistic reasons the microphone HAS to stay on the
camera. I am experienced enough to know that the BANE of indie/low
budget film is poor audio.


My own experience in film production over the last ten or more years has
been almost exclusively with scripted productions. Even my one experience
working with the Canon XL-1 was a regular show with a script super, 1st
and
2nd A.D.¹s, etc. But I have some documentary work in my background so,
with
some trepidation, I¹ll wade into this morass.

I think that ³DealMaker² has been ill served by many of the replies that
take him to task for failing to commit the resources necessary to reliably
accomplish good sound recording. The technical aspects of making a movie
are
only a part of the enterprise and, arguably, not the most important one.
Having an interesting story or experience to relate and showing it with a
distinctive point of view is always the most important element. If the
camerawork is shakey or sound is thin but the on-screen events are
compelling, then people with watch. News footage is an obvious example. Of
course, audiences do get tired and annoyed by blurry images and straining
to
pick words out of a noisy environment so professionals try to make the
experience as pleasant and effortless as they can.

Sometimes a very low profile and amateur appearance is the very thing that
permits the videographer to record remarkable things. A documentary about
urban street gangs, or a political campaign film made riding in the bus
with
the candidate, might be a great thing. Two and three man crews have done
this kind of work before but one person with a small camera might get more
intimate and casual access than even a small crew. That doesn¹t
necessarily
make for a better film than the bigger crew but it might be a different
one
in other ways than the obvious technical ones.

Some of my colleagues have suggested a careful evaluation of the wisdom of
making the project at all. Guys, I respectfully suggest that this might
not
be behavior we would want to encourage. Looking back over my career, I can
clearly see that at least half of the films I¹ve worked would never have
been made if the producer had exercised good sense (and I would have been
unable to earn a living). Praise be for producers with more money than
sense! Moreover, judging which enterprise is likely to be successful is a
perilous enterprise. Who among us would have ³greenlighted² the recent
film
³Spelling Bee?² Or the HBO film ³Conspiracy² about the Wannsee Conference?

And, any foolish enterprise may be the genesis of something better to
come.
Trying to write a script from a book about poaching orchids is (probably)
a
doomed undertaking. But the film about trying to write that script has
enjoyed great success. Every project a producer makes is a learning
experience for all the participants. In this case, ³DealMaker² will hazard
only $3000. At worst, he may have an unwatchable film for little more than
what Orsen Welles would spend on a few lunches. He¹ll learn about what
works
and what doesn¹t and he¹ll keep an otherwise layabout videographer off the
streets.

My technical advice is simple.

1.I don¹t know what is the very best microphone for this undertaking but
more good documentary work has been done with the Sennheiser MKH 416 short
shotgun mike than almost anything else. At the very least, any microphone
candidates should be auditioned in competition with the Sennheiser.
Better,
acquire the power supplies and adapters that permit using the Sennheiser
with the camera of choice and don¹t look back.

2. Have a machinist make a custom bracket to hold the microphone above the
camera, as far as possible away from zoom motors, etc. Ideally it might be
extendable so it could be a short extension inside a car and longer when
working outdoors or in regular rooms. It should permit at least a foot of
extension; more is better.

3. Acquire a very good shockmount for the mike. I like the Panamic but
that
may be too heavy for your application. The K-Tek mount looks very good.

4. As others have suggested, choose locations that are sound friendly. Any
production benefits from this advice.

5. Try to structure the filming style to keep the camera within four feet
(or less) of the subjects. The closer you work to the people talking, the
less wretched the sound will be. (notice I didn¹t say ³better²)

6. Alternately, keep the camera a discreet distance from the subjects.
When
lip movements are not clearly seen, it¹s easy to replace sound with dialog
recorded later or with a subject voice over. Of course, this violates the
Dogma principal. If you must stick to the Dogma ideals, reread the
comments,
above, about a fool and his money.

7. Most importantly, make tests with the selected equipment under
circumstances that closely approximate working conditions. Jettison the
approaches that don¹t work and refine those that do.

I hope this helps. I'll be interested to hear how it all turns out. (But I
think I probably already know.)

David Waelder