Timecode from camera to Zoom H4

[Pete T]

I will be recording an interview with a Sony EX3 camera. The producer
wants an MP3 transcription, with audio on ch1 and timecode on audio ch
2. The set up is this. I will lav and boom the speaker, and send 2
seperate tracks to camera. I use a Sound Devices 422 mixer. I will
also send one of these channels to ch 1 on my Zoom recorder. Now, if
I take the Timecode out of the camera and send it to ch2 on the Zoom,
I have been warned that the level will be so hot that the timecode
track might bleed onto channel 1 of the zoom as well. Does anybody
use this type of set up? My idea is to send the camera timecode
signal through a second mixer, changing the hot line level to a mic
level, and then on to the Zoom. Would a 50db inline pad work as well?

Thanks

[Scott Dorsey]

Pete T > wrote:
>I will be recording an interview with a Sony EX3 camera. The producer
>wants an MP3 transcription, with audio on ch1 and timecode on audio ch
>2. The set up is this. I will lav and boom the speaker, and send 2
>seperate tracks to camera. I use a Sound Devices 422 mixer. I will
>also send one of these channels to ch 1 on my Zoom recorder. Now, if
>I take the Timecode out of the camera and send it to ch2 on the Zoom,
>I have been warned that the level will be so hot that the timecode
>track might bleed onto channel 1 of the zoom as well. Does anybody
>use this type of set up? My idea is to send the camera timecode
>signal through a second mixer, changing the hot line level to a mic
>level, and then on to the Zoom. Would a 50db inline pad work as well?

Try it and see. Of course, use an uncompressed format and not direct
mp3.

Normally folks will want timecode printed at -20 dBFS, but if you have
a leakage issue when you test it out, you can print it lower. There is
a gain control on the Zoom, I presume? Set it so you get a nice level
to tape.

I have done this sort of thing with analogue recorders that didn't have
real timecode tracks, and you can do it if you have to (and if your
camera has FSK timecode output instead of just baseband). It's a pain
for the poor sods in post, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Pete T]

On May 21, 3:44*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Pete T > wrote:
>
> >I will be recording an interview with a Sony EX3 camera. *The producer
> >wants an MP3 transcription, with audio on ch1 and timecode on audio ch
> >2. *The set up is this. *I will lav and boom the speaker, and send 2
> >seperate tracks to camera. *I use a Sound Devices 422 mixer. *I will
> >also send one of these channels to ch 1 on my Zoom recorder. *Now, if
> >I take the Timecode out of the camera and send it to ch2 on the Zoom,
> >I have been warned that the level will be so hot that the timecode
> >track might bleed onto channel 1 of the zoom as well. *Does anybody
> >use this type of set up? * My idea is to send the camera timecode
> >signal through a second mixer, changing the hot line level to a mic
> >level, and then on to the Zoom. *Would a 50db inline pad work as well?
>
> Try it and see. *Of course, use an uncompressed format and not direct
> mp3.
>
> Normally folks will want timecode printed at -20 dBFS, but if you have
> a leakage issue when you test it out, you can print it lower. *There is
> a gain control on the Zoom, I presume? *Set it so you get a nice level
> to tape.
>
> I have done this sort of thing with analogue recorders that didn't have
> real timecode tracks, and you can do it if you have to (and if your
> camera has FSK timecode output instead of just baseband). *It's a pain
> for the poor sods in post, though.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


Thanks Scott

What do you mean by------- "Of course, use an uncompressed format and
not direct mp3" . Why? I was going to use MP3 as this is for
transcription only. My other choices are wave files which, quality
wise, seem to be overkill and are very large files compared to MP3.

Pete

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/21/2011 8:19 PM, Pete T wrote:

> What do you mean by------- "Of course, use an uncompressed format and
> not direct mp3" . Why? I was going to use MP3 as this is for
> transcription only. My other choices are wave files which, quality
> wise, seem to be overkill and are very large files compared to MP3.

I suspect that Scott is concerned that the time code might be corrupted
by the MP3 data reduction. It's worth a test before you fly. I don't
believe you'll have a problem with bleed. The Zoom H4 has a functional
volume control. What you were told might have been a left-over fact from
multitrack analog tape recording, where if the time code was too hot,
the track's magnetic field would spill over to another track at the
playback head. But of course there's none of this in a digital
recording. The only possible source of bleed is crosstalk in the analog
signal path.

If this is for transcription only, my first inclination was why even
record time code since anything you play back the file on will display
time. Perhaps the client wants actual camera time code (starting
wherever it starts) rather than the Zoom time code which starts each
file at zero. Just asking,

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Scott Dorsey]

Pete T > wrote:
>
>What do you mean by------- "Of course, use an uncompressed format and
>not direct mp3" . Why? I was going to use MP3 as this is for
>transcription only. My other choices are wave files which, quality
>wise, seem to be overkill and are very large files compared to MP3.

Record as .wav. Turn it into the mp3 afterward.

You don't know what is going to happen in the mp3 encoding process,
and you know (even if you're using split stereo mode) that there are
going to be weird interactions between channels sometimes with the
encoding. So do the encoding at your desk when you can fool around
with the encoding parameters, not in the field when you're trying to
do fifty things at once.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Pete T]

On May 22, 5:35*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Pete T > wrote:
>
>
>
> >What do you mean by------- "Of course, use an uncompressed format and
> >not direct mp3" . *Why? I was going to use MP3 as this is for
> >transcription only. *My other choices are wave files which, quality
> >wise, seem to be overkill and are very large files compared to MP3.
>
> Record as .wav. *Turn it into the mp3 afterward.
>
> You don't know what is going to happen in the mp3 encoding process,
> and you know (even if you're using split stereo mode) that there are
> going to be weird interactions between channels sometimes with the
> encoding. *So do the encoding at your desk when you can fool around
> with the encoding parameters, not in the field when you're trying to
> do fifty things at once.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Thanks again all. To be clearer. I am recording a long interview,
about 2 hours, to a video camera, Sony EX3, which generates it's own
timecode. Video and two channels of audio will be recorded to the
camera. I use a lav on one channel and my boom on the other. No
problem here. The interview will be edited down to perhaps a 10
minute piece.

There is a "timecode out" on the camera, which I want to send to one
of the Zooms audio tracks.

The digital audio file on my zoom is only used by a transcription
house, who will print out a written transcription of the interview.
They can read timecode off the second digital track so that the
written document has timecode notes, matching the camera, along with
the spoken words, so that the producer can do a rough paper edit..
So, minor timecode drift is not the issue. My problem is I do not
have access to the camera until the day of the interview, as the
producer is bringing it with him from out of town.

[Scott Dorsey]

Pete T > wrote:
>
>Thanks again all. To be clearer. I am recording a long interview,
>about 2 hours, to a video camera, Sony EX3, which generates it's own
>timecode. Video and two channels of audio will be recorded to the
>camera. I use a lav on one channel and my boom on the other. No
>problem here. The interview will be edited down to perhaps a 10
>minute piece.
>
>There is a "timecode out" on the camera, which I want to send to one
>of the Zooms audio tracks.

Is that timecode out modulated FSK or baseband data? If the timecode
out is FSK (and you'll know it because it will have a whining sound
instead of a buzzing sound when you plug headphones into it), you are
good to go.

>The digital audio file on my zoom is only used by a transcription
>house, who will print out a written transcription of the interview.
>They can read timecode off the second digital track so that the
>written document has timecode notes, matching the camera, along with
>the spoken words, so that the producer can do a rough paper edit..
>So, minor timecode drift is not the issue. My problem is I do not
>have access to the camera until the day of the interview, as the
>producer is bringing it with him from out of town.

You won't have any timecode drift at all because you are constantly
laying timecode down at all times. Nothing is running wild, everything
is always locked up.

Find out what the camera is, get the camera manual.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/22/2011 10:58 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> You won't have any timecode drift at all because you are constantly
> laying timecode down at all times. Nothing is running wild, everything
> is always locked up.

There won't be any time code drift on the recording from the video
camera, but without the Zoom being synchronized to time code, there's a
possibility of drift, but probably less than a second out of a couple of
hours. Crystals are pretty close to being at the right frequency.

I see the point, though, of at least knowing what the approximate camera
time code is when transcribing from the Zoom recording. If, for example,
the camera time code is real clock time (time of day) and the Zoom time
starts at 0:00:00 at the beginning of the file, then an offset needs to
be calculated - add 14 hours and 16 minutes if the recording started at
2:16 PM, for example - and depending on what's used for the playback,
there may or may not be a way to offset the displayed time code.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 5/22/2011 10:58 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> You won't have any timecode drift at all because you are constantly
>> laying timecode down at all times. Nothing is running wild, everything
>> is always locked up.
>
>There won't be any time code drift on the recording from the video
>camera, but without the Zoom being synchronized to time code, there's a
>possibility of drift, but probably less than a second out of a couple of
>hours. Crystals are pretty close to being at the right frequency.

So what? When they play the thing back, they will lock to the timecode
on the left audio track. Just like resolving a tape from a Uher 4000
for someone who didn't have the money for a Nagra. Timecode on lower
track.

The Zoom will drift and drift but it doesn't matter.

Doing this of course means you have doubled the storage requirements
compared with storing a mono file with timecode, but who cares?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Charles Tomaras]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/21/2011 8:19 PM, Pete T wrote:
>
>> What do you mean by------- "Of course, use an uncompressed format and
>> not direct mp3" . Why? I was going to use MP3 as this is for
>> transcription only. My other choices are wave files which, quality
>> wise, seem to be overkill and are very large files compared to MP3.
>
> I suspect that Scott is concerned that the time code might be corrupted by
> the MP3 data reduction. It's worth a test before you fly. I don't believe
> you'll have a problem with bleed. The Zoom H4 has a functional volume
> control. What you were told might have been a left-over fact from
> multitrack analog tape recording, where if the time code was too hot, the
> track's magnetic field would spill over to another track at the playback
> head. But of course there's none of this in a digital recording. The only
> possible source of bleed is crosstalk in the analog signal path.
>
> If this is for transcription only, my first inclination was why even
> record time code since anything you play back the file on will display
> time. Perhaps the client wants actual camera time code (starting wherever
> it starts) rather than the Zoom time code which starts each file at zero.
> Just asking,

Timcoded transcriptions are fairly standard practice for the majority of the
interviews done for network news and documentary today. It's no big deal.
Recording LTC to one of the tracks is the OLD way of doing it which was
standard practice with cassette recorders for the last 15 or 20 years using
LTC on one track printed as low as could still be read by a timecode reader
at the transcription house. There was so much crosstalk on cassette with hot
TC levels that it made it difficult or annoying for the transcriber if it
was printed too hot. With today's digital recorders, crosstalk is not an
issue and you can record hot LTC levels without fear. The LTC readers
actually do better with hotter levels...and they can always turn it down on
their end.

MP3 compression at rates as low as 64kbps are accurate enough for a TC
reader to operate without issue.

The latest method of doing timecode transcription is to deliver MP3 files
with TC Metadata in the ID3 tags of the files. These can be recorded
directly with the Sound Devices 552 mixer/recorder or through the use of
Broadcast Widget Pro (http://bwfwidget.com/) they can be created from
timecoded Broadcast Wave files which ALL of the real location recorders can
record. Of course with the "poor man's" Zoom recorder you are stuck dealing
with LTC.

The transcription companies transcribe the spoken words and mark the
beginning of each section or paragraph with a SMPTE TC value that matches
the video file which allows editors to find stuff quickly.

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/22/2011 10:31 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> When they play the thing back, they will lock to the timecode
> on the left audio track. Just like resolving a tape from a Uher 4000
> for someone who didn't have the money for a Nagra. Timecode on lower
> track.

But I don't believe they're ever going to lock picture to the time code
on the Zoom. Since he said he's recording on the Zoom for transcription
purposes only, I assume that they're gonig to use the audio on the video
camera for the final edit. They're only going to use that time code to
keep an editing log because it corresponds to the time code coming from
the camera and they can refer to a section of the interview with the
camera time (whch may not start from zero) rather than the Zoom time
(which always starts at zero).



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/22/2011 11:19 PM, Charles Tomaras wrote:

> The latest method of doing timecode transcription is to deliver MP3 files
> with TC Metadata in the ID3 tags of the files. These can be recorded
> directly with the Sound Devices 552 mixer/recorder or through the use of
> Broadcast Widget Pro (http://bwfwidget.com/) they can be created from
> timecoded Broadcast Wave files which ALL of the real location recorders can
> record. Of course with the "poor man's" Zoom recorder you are stuck dealing
> with LTC.

This is a "pro vs. what we got" issue. Sure, if you're using a Sound
Devices or one of the TASCAM or Fostex time code capable recorders for
your reference audio, you can do this. But the Zoom, as far as I know,
has no way of setting a time code start time or even using real time
clock time as the time code reference. So you may have a conversation
beginning at BWF time stamp 00:14:27.105 on the Zoom, that time may not
exist on the video camera because its time code started at 1:00:00 or
real clock time.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Charles Tomaras]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/22/2011 11:19 PM, Charles Tomaras wrote:
>
>> The latest method of doing timecode transcription is to deliver MP3 files
>> with TC Metadata in the ID3 tags of the files. These can be recorded
>> directly with the Sound Devices 552 mixer/recorder or through the use of
>> Broadcast Widget Pro (http://bwfwidget.com/) they can be created from
>> timecoded Broadcast Wave files which ALL of the real location recorders
>> can
>> record. Of course with the "poor man's" Zoom recorder you are stuck
>> dealing
>> with LTC.
>
> This is a "pro vs. what we got" issue. Sure, if you're using a Sound
> Devices or one of the TASCAM or Fostex time code capable recorders for
> your reference audio, you can do this. But the Zoom, as far as I know, has
> no way of setting a time code start time or even using real time clock
> time as the time code reference. So you may have a conversation beginning
> at BWF time stamp 00:14:27.105 on the Zoom, that time may not exist on the
> video camera because its time code started at 1:00:00 or real clock time.

Yes, exactly, which is why LTC for transcriptions still exists for many. I
decided years ago, that even though the camera's audio is almost always the
master audio on my shoots, that I would roll my Sound Devices recorders
(always in my ENG/DOC bag anyway) with 24/48 BWF SMPTE files and convert for
transcription after the fact. I don't get paid anything extra for the
expensive recorder but I have the piece of mind, when dealing with the
plethora of different cameras these days, that I have a master quality
recording available if something goes wrong.

[Pete T]

On May 23, 9:22*am, "Charles Tomaras" > wrote:
> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/22/2011 11:19 PM, Charles Tomaras wrote:
>
> >> The latest method of doing timecode transcription is to deliver MP3 files
> >> with TC Metadata in the ID3 tags of the files. These can be recorded
> >> directly with the Sound Devices 552 mixer/recorder or through the use of
> >> Broadcast Widget Pro (http://bwfwidget.com/) they can be created from
> >> timecoded Broadcast Wave files which ALL of the real location recorders
> >> can
> >> record. Of course with the "poor man's" Zoom recorder you are stuck
> >> dealing
> >> with LTC.
>
> > This is a "pro vs. what we got" issue. Sure, if you're using a Sound
> > Devices or one of the TASCAM or Fostex time code capable recorders for
> > your reference audio, you can do this. But the Zoom, as far as I know, has
> > no way of setting a time code start time or even using real time clock
> > time as the time code reference. So you may have a conversation beginning
> > at BWF time stamp 00:14:27.105 on the Zoom, that time may not exist on the
> > video camera because its time code started at 1:00:00 or real clock time.
>
> Yes, exactly, which is why LTC for transcriptions still exists for many. I
> decided years ago, that even though the camera's audio is almost always the
> master audio on my shoots, that I would roll my Sound Devices recorders
> (always in my ENG/DOC bag anyway) with 24/48 BWF SMPTE files and convert for
> transcription after the fact. I don't get paid anything extra for the
> expensive recorder but I have the piece of mind, when dealing with the
> plethora of different cameras these days, that I have a master quality
> recording available if something goes wrong.

I found this device online, I think this will work for what I'm
trying to do

http://www.pro-sound.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=PSS&Product_Code=SRTTC&Category_Code=

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 5/22/2011 11:19 PM, Charles Tomaras wrote:
>
>> The latest method of doing timecode transcription is to deliver MP3 files
>> with TC Metadata in the ID3 tags of the files. These can be recorded
>> directly with the Sound Devices 552 mixer/recorder or through the use of
>> Broadcast Widget Pro (http://bwfwidget.com/) they can be created from
>> timecoded Broadcast Wave files which ALL of the real location recorders can
>> record. Of course with the "poor man's" Zoom recorder you are stuck dealing
>> with LTC.
>
>This is a "pro vs. what we got" issue. Sure, if you're using a Sound
>Devices or one of the TASCAM or Fostex time code capable recorders for
>your reference audio, you can do this. But the Zoom, as far as I know,
>has no way of setting a time code start time or even using real time
>clock time as the time code reference. So you may have a conversation
>beginning at BWF time stamp 00:14:27.105 on the Zoom, that time may not
>exist on the video camera because its time code started at 1:00:00 or
>real clock time.

The zoom has no timecode at all. It has only absolute time, which is
not the same as timecode. The timestamps are useless.

This is why the original poster has to record timecode as audio on one
channel, a la Uher 4000.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/23/2011 12:43 PM, Pete T wrote:

> I found this device online, I think this will work for what I'm
> trying to do
>
> http://www.pro-sound.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=PSS&Product_Code=SRTTC&Category_Code=

That's pretty clever. It's cheap enough for some so that
it's worth saving the time to make up custom cables.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/23/2011 3:34 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> The zoom has no timecode at all. It has only absolute time, which is
> not the same as timecode. The timestamps are useless.

For this application, yes. But when played back on the Zoom
recorder, or most audio editing programs, there's a time
display. While it will track very closely with the camera's
time code, there will almost certainly be an offset that you
can't apply at the recorder, and it's probably too much
paperwork to apply it at the DAW.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Jason Warren[_2_]]

In article >, says...
> The Zoom H4 has a functional
> volume control.

...and the latest code release adds the capability to adjust the recording levels for the
two channels independently.