[Badmuts]

I've been asked to not only record a live band gig to 24 tracks but also to
record video footage so the band can publish a DVD of the concert.
I'm using a DAW and Nuendo 3 (or Adobe Audition) and m-audio lightbridge +
3x 8-analog-to-adat preamps/converters for audio recording.
Alternatively i might use an Alesis HD24.
Either way i will do the mixdown and possibly video editing afterwards.

I'm wondering which way to go for the video recording.
Should i get some interface board with a composite video in and have a video
feed from the cam(s or video mixer) and record it in realtime simultaneously
with the audio so syncing is no problem? If so, which board? And is Nuendo
capable of this? What about CPU load on my DAW?

Only video experience i have is from way back with Adobe Premiere.

Or: is there a way to mix the audio the way i'm used to and how do i get it
in sync with video footage recorded to an mpeg file (the way consumer
digital video cams do it)?
I think things like SMPT are key words here but i haven't done this sort of
thing before and i'm not sure what todays consumer cams are capable of: all
i own is a simple video cam with composite video out. Any pointers, tips,
gear, web site, sound advice?

Bm

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 05:45:05 +0200, "Badmuts"
wrote:

I've been asked to not only record a live band gig to 24 tracks but also to
record video footage so the band can publish a DVD of the concert.

all
i own is a simple video cam with composite video out. Any pointers, tips,
gear, web site, sound advice?

So you'll need to farm out the video recording? Maybe to some
folks who do weddings and such; they'll have all the hardware
and enough camera op's to make an interesting DVD.

Video as a one-man gig is either terribly boring or terribly
amateurish, with lots of overlap. You need a crew - kick it
around a bit and you'll agree.

All the best fortune,

Chris Hornbeck

[Richard Crowley]

"Badmuts" wrote ...
I've been asked to not only record a live band gig to 24 tracks but also
to
record video footage so the band can publish a DVD of the concert.
I'm using a DAW and Nuendo 3 (or Adobe Audition) and m-audio lightbridge +
3x 8-analog-to-adat preamps/converters for audio recording.
Alternatively i might use an Alesis HD24.
Either way i will do the mixdown and possibly video editing afterwards.

I'm wondering which way to go for the video recording.
Should i get some interface board with a composite video in and have a
video
feed from the cam(s or video mixer) and record it in realtime
simultaneously
with the audio so syncing is no problem? If so, which board? And is Nuendo
capable of this? What about CPU load on my DAW?

IME, you can record the audio however you wish and then
manually sync it to the video with little trouble. I have done
this many times. I now use my HD24 to track each individual
mic during the live performance

Only video experience i have is from way back with Adobe Premiere.

Adobe Premiere is still a major player in video NLE. I use both
the Pro and the "Elements" versions.

Or: is there a way to mix the audio the way i'm used to and how do i get
it
in sync with video footage recorded to an mpeg file (the way consumer
digital video cams do it)?

I wouldn't want to have to commit to a real-time live mix for the
video when you have the capability of tracking the mics and then
mix it down in post-production.

OTOH, be sure to record a "scratch" or "reference" audio on each
camera/camcorder so you have something to sync your mixed-
down audio track to. This is the default for most all consumer
camcorders which will record audio from the on-camera mic.

It should go without saying here in an audio newsgroup that the
audio from an on-camera microphone isn't good for anything
except as a reference to sync the REAL audio track to.

I think things like SMPT are key words here but i haven't done this sort
of
thing before and i'm not sure what todays consumer cams are capable of:
all
i own is a simple video cam with composite video out. Any pointers, tips,
gear, web site, sound advice?

Perhaps you are thinking of SMPTE time-code. You need
professional video (and audio) equipment to take advantage
of timecode. It isn't worth it for a project as you describe,
at least IMHO.

I do as much video production as audio, and I would strongly
recommend a minimum of 3 cameras/camcorders. Else, the
video won't be attractive enough to anyone except the musos
themselves. You can frame at least one camcorder with a
locked-down wide angle "coverage" shot, and then at least
a couple more cameras with operators getting close-ups, etc.

With modern video NLE, it is easy to take your mixed-down
audio track and lay it in as the master reference, then take the
video from your cameras and slide them into place so that their
"scratch track" syncs with your master mixed-down track.

[Richard Crowley]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote ...
I suggest you post this to rec.arts.movies.production.sound. The experts
on this subject live there.

Actually, the experts there rarely (never?) do this kind of low-
budget production method. They are accustomed to using the
high-price equipment and would generally be horrified at the
thought of not using SMPTE timecode.

OTOH, this topic is discussed regularly on the video newsgroups..
news:rec.video.production (shooting) and news:rec.video.desktop
(editing).

IMHO he can easily get away without timecode for the project
as described. I've done it many times myself.

[Rick Powell]

On Jun 2, 12:24*am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Soundhaspriority" *wrote ...

I suggest you post this to rec.arts.movies.production.sound. The experts
on this subject live there.

Actually, the experts there rarely (never?) do this kind of low-
budget production method. They are accustomed to using the
high-price equipment and would generally be horrified at the
thought of not using SMPTE timecode.

OTOH, this topic is discussed regularly on the video newsgroups..
news:rec.video.production (shooting) and news:rec.video.desktop
(editing).

IMHO he can easily get away without timecode for the project
as described. *I've done it many times myself.

With modern digital audio and video recorders and cameras, there is no
appreciable drift between the audio and video recordings if "wild
synching". Not like the old days of videotape, film and r-t-r audio.
All you need is an audio cue to line up the start.

RP

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 05:45:05 +0200, "Badmuts"
wrote:

I've been asked to not only record a live band gig to 24 tracks but also to
record video footage so the band can publish a DVD of the concert.
I'm using a DAW and Nuendo 3 (or Adobe Audition) and m-audio lightbridge +
3x 8-analog-to-adat preamps/converters for audio recording.
Alternatively i might use an Alesis HD24.
Either way i will do the mixdown and possibly video editing afterwards.

I'm wondering which way to go for the video recording.

For an archive recording, a single camera can just about cut it. But
you'll need something better for sale.

You take care of the audio. Round up a few friends who own dv
cameras. Station one near the back with instructions to get an
overall view. Others wherever practical, looking for close-ups,
interesting angles ... whatever. Everyone records straight through,
no stopping and starting. Everyone has his camera firmly on a tripod
unless there's a very good reason why not. Those wobbly hand-held
shots get irritating very quickly!

Load the videos and your audio recording into a video editor. I like
Vegas. Some prefer Premiere. Sync will pretty well take care of
itself - digital gear doesn't drift much. . You can use the camera
audio as a reference. (Maybe the rear camera will require a small
offset due to sound delay). Start snipping! It's not as hard as it
sounds. But you'll spend a lot of time on this job :-)

Or get a crew in. The guys who do wedding videos are equipped for
this job.

[Arny Krueger]

"Badmuts" wrote in
message

I've been asked to not only record a live band gig to 24
tracks but also to record video footage so the band can
publish a DVD of the concert.
I'm using a DAW and Nuendo 3 (or Adobe Audition) and
m-audio Lightbridge + 3x 8-analog-to-ADAT
preamps/converters for audio recording.
Alternatively I might use an Alesis HD24.

Either way I will do the mixdown and possibly video
editing afterwards.

Hand-synching video to audio is not that hard.

I'm wondering which way to go for the video recording.

First concentrate on the audio, because it will be the backbone of the job.

If you have camcorders, record to their tapes or whatever storage they have.

Transfer the video to your editing platform, preferably using their Firewire
interfaces.

Layer the video on top of your mixdown.

Should I get some interface board with a composite video
in and have a video feed from the cam(s or video mixer)
and record it in real-time simultaneously with the audio
so syncing is no problem?

That is a long, complex, expensive road.

And is
Nuendo capable of this? What about CPU load on my DAW?

IME editing video eats CPU and disk in ways that you've never seen with
audio, not even heavy multitracking.

Only video experience I have is from way back with Adobe
Premiere.

It's still a competitive tool.

Or: is there a way to mix the audio the way I'm used to
and how do I get it in sync with video footage recorded
to an mpeg file (the way consumer digital video cams do
it)?

The beauty of digital is once-synched, (mostly) always synched. Especially
for (video or audio) clips under 5 minutes each, if you synch the clip to
your backbone, it will stay synched for the duration.

Synching video to audio is a critical life skill for someone who wants to do
audio and video. Unless you have a big studio, a big video board, etc. you
will probably do all of your editing and mixing on a video workstation, one
clip at a time.

I think things like SMPTE are key words here but I haven't
done this sort of thing before and I'm not sure what
today's consumer cams are capable of: all I own is a
simple video cam with composite video out. Any pointers,
tips, gear, web site, sound advice?

There are a ton of video forums, Usenet and otherwise.

[Scott Dorsey]

Badmuts wrote:
I've been asked to not only record a live band gig to 24 tracks but also to
record video footage so the band can publish a DVD of the concert.
I'm using a DAW and Nuendo 3 (or Adobe Audition) and m-audio lightbridge +
3x 8-analog-to-adat preamps/converters for audio recording.
Alternatively i might use an Alesis HD24.
Either way i will do the mixdown and possibly video editing afterwards.

That's fine.

I'm wondering which way to go for the video recording.
Should i get some interface board with a composite video in and have a video
feed from the cam(s or video mixer) and record it in realtime simultaneously
with the audio so syncing is no problem? If so, which board? And is Nuendo
capable of this? What about CPU load on my DAW?

Contract it out. Get some professional camera operators and a professional
director who can lay shots out and point them in the right place.

The technical part is easy, the artistic part is difficult.

Only video experience i have is from way back with Adobe Premiere.

The video all gets loaded into one big video editing application. The
audio, which you have mixed down from the multitrack down to a 2-track
file, also gets loaded into the application.

IF you are not running timecode, you have someone on stage occasionally
clap their hands in front of the cameras, or use a slate. This allows
the editor to synch the sound up with the cameras, and allows them to synch
the cameras up together, and it allows them to synch the cameras together.

Or: is there a way to mix the audio the way i'm used to and how do i get it
in sync with video footage recorded to an mpeg file (the way consumer
digital video cams do it)?

If you are not running timecode, you just cross your fingers and hope that
since all this stuff is digital and running off crystal clocks that once
they are all synched up, they will all stay synched up. Then, add slates
on a regular basis, so that if cameras start to drift, you can cut or add
frames here and there so that things synch up.

I think things like SMPT are key words here but i haven't done this sort of
thing before and i'm not sure what todays consumer cams are capable of: all
i own is a simple video cam with composite video out. Any pointers, tips,
gear, web site, sound advice?

Hire a video guy. You're going to need at least two camera ops anyway....
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Soundhaspriority" wrote ...
I suggest you post this to rec.arts.movies.production.sound. The experts
on this subject live there.

Actually, the experts there rarely (never?) do this kind of low-
budget production method. They are accustomed to using the
high-price equipment and would generally be horrified at the
thought of not using SMPTE timecode.

True, but the experts used to do this kind of thing all the time before
there was SMPTE timecode..... In fact, some folks did it with a single
camera synched to the recorder with a 60 Hz pilot tone umblilical, and
all the other cameras running completely wild... and then hope that the
editor could make sense of all of it.... especially when some of the wild
cameras were spring-wound and as much as 5 frames per second off-speed....
Oh, I don't miss that at all....
--scott


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

[Ethan Winer]

Should i get some interface board with a composite video in and have a
video feed

Using composite connections will yield terrible quality. All modern video
cameras have a Firewire port. You connect that to a Firewire card in the
computer and use a Video Capture program to transfer the video from the
camera to a file. Then import that file, along with the audio file, into a
program like Vegas. It's trivial to slide the audio and video tracks to
align them by looking at the waveforms. You probably won't use the camera's
audio, except as a visual guide to align the "real" audio.

--Ethan

[Richard Crowley]

"John Phillips" wrote ...
With modern video NLE, it is easy to take your mixed-down
audio track and lay it in as the master reference, then take the
video from your cameras and slide them into place so that their
"scratch track" syncs with your master mixed-down track.

What editor(s) do you use for this?

I personally use Adobe Premiere, but most (all?) video NLE
applications allow this kind of manipulation. It is pretty
straightforward. Nothing magic here.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 2 Jun 2008 10:08:57 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Richard Crowley wrote:
Actually, the experts snipped would generally be horrified at the
thought of not using SMPTE timecode.

True, but the experts used to do this kind of thing all the time before
there was SMPTE timecode..... In fact, some folks did it with a single
camera synched to the recorder with a 60 Hz pilot tone umblilical, and
all the other cameras running completely wild... and then hope that the
editor could make sense of all of it.... especially when some of the wild
cameras were spring-wound and as much as 5 frames per second off-speed....
Oh, I don't miss that at all....

This explains a lot about Fellini movies, even the parts that
Truffaut didn't cover in _Day for Night_, yet leaves open an
explanation/excuse for the weird sync in modern stuff
transposed to video.

Godard could make movies with (only!) wild (ish) sound that folks love
to this day, but today we can't reliably sync *digital* sound with
*digital* video in multi-million-dollar productions. I say Bah Humbug.

And Furthermore!.... Sorry....



But much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"The technical part is easy, The artistic part is difficult."
-scott

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 03:39:44 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

Godard could make movies with (only!) wild (ish) sound that folks love
to this day, but today we can't reliably sync *digital* sound with
*digital* video in multi-million-dollar productions. I say Bah Humbug.

I bet it's synched when it leaves the studio. Are you watching it on
TV? Strange things can happen in the transmission chain.

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 03:39:44 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

Godard could make movies with (only!) wild (ish) sound
that folks love to this day, but today we can't reliably
sync *digital* sound with *digital* video in
multi-million-dollar productions. I say Bah Humbug.

I bet it's synched when it leaves the studio. Are you
watching it on TV? Strange things can happen in the
transmission chain.

Actually, HDTV is rife with poorly-synchronized signals, even within common
consumer distribution and display equipment.

The basic problem arises because digital decoders and displays can have
signficiant latency, and that latency can vary. A classic cause of bad
lip-synch can come about when a set-top cable box drives a stereo system
through a digital or analog output, and a separate display is used. The
latency of the two signal paths can vary.

Consumers who want their sound and video to be in synch, and also want to
use separate video and sound components, need to investigate variable audio
delay units that are sold for the purpose.

The master plan appears to be distribution subsystems like HDMI, that
transfer the video and audio in the digital domain in parallel.

[Scott Dorsey]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On 2 Jun 2008 10:08:57 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Richard Crowley wrote:
Actually, the experts snipped would generally be horrified at the
thought of not using SMPTE timecode.

True, but the experts used to do this kind of thing all the time before
there was SMPTE timecode..... In fact, some folks did it with a single
camera synched to the recorder with a 60 Hz pilot tone umblilical, and
all the other cameras running completely wild... and then hope that the
editor could make sense of all of it.... especially when some of the wild
cameras were spring-wound and as much as 5 frames per second off-speed....
Oh, I don't miss that at all....

This explains a lot about Fellini movies, even the parts that
Truffaut didn't cover in _Day for Night_, yet leaves open an
explanation/excuse for the weird sync in modern stuff
transposed to video.

Felini is sort of an odd thing.... back in those days, the Italian film
industry made movies that were mostly for export, and consequently they were
ALL shot MOS, and the sound dubbed in later on in various languages. This
also, of course, meant that the director could call out stage directions on
set since there was no audio on set at all.

Since they had international casts, they would often have different cast
members speaking in different languages on set. If you watch some of the
Sergio Leone films with Clint Eastwood, it's clear he's speaking in English
but the rest of the cast is speaking Italian except for the ones that speak
French.

As a result of this practice, Cinecitta developed the largest and most
sophisticated dubbing stages and Foley rooms, because they had to. And
Italians came to expect that movies would never have quite perfect lip synch.

Godard could make movies with (only!) wild (ish) sound that folks love
to this day, but today we can't reliably sync *digital* sound with
*digital* video in multi-million-dollar productions. I say Bah Humbug.

Yes, that's because Godard is too unreliable to hire for multi-million-dollar
productions. Producers are spending all that money, they don't want to hire
someone who hasn't had a big hit in the last two weeks... and they want
everything to be EXACTLY like that last hit....
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Actually, HDTV is rife with poorly-synchronized signals, even within common
consumer distribution and display equipment.

I have an old TV set. I just watch over-the-air TV and get a pretty
crummy picture, but it works wonders for putting me to sleep. I recently
got a digital converter (RF output to the TV set, no fancy separate
components) and now I get a good enough picture that I can actually see
the actors' lips move. The audio is nearly always out of sync with the
video. I never noticed it before with the straight analog signal path. I
don't know if it's always like this, or if this is a "digital" thing.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Actually, HDTV is rife with poorly-synchronized signals, even within
common consumer distribution and display equipment.

I have an old TV set. I just watch over-the-air TV and get a pretty
crummy picture, but it works wonders for putting me to sleep. I recently
got a digital converter (RF output to the TV set, no fancy separate
components) and now I get a good enough picture that I can actually see
the actors' lips move. The audio is nearly always out of sync with the
video. I never noticed it before with the straight analog signal path. I
don't know if it's always like this, or if this is a "digital" thing.

All it takes is a few dropouts in the signal and the audio will fall out
of sync with the video, usually you can flip a channel back and forth
and it will fix itself. At least that's the way it is on my cheap
converter. The upside is that the picture is great, that's all the video
guys care about anyway :-)

[Ron Capik]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

....snip...

All it takes is a few dropouts in the signal and the audio will fall out
of sync with the video, usually you can flip a channel back and forth
and it will fix itself. At least that's the way it is on my cheap
converter. The upside is that the picture is great, that's all the video
guys care about anyway :-)

Oh it's great ...'till a plane flies by or a storm front moves
in and the whole thing goes blotchy, stutters, stalls, and
drops out. Thus far my over-the-air digital frequently sucks.
[YMMV]



Later...

Ron Capik
--

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Ron Capik wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

....snip...

All it takes is a few dropouts in the signal and the audio will fall out
of sync with the video, usually you can flip a channel back and forth
and it will fix itself. At least that's the way it is on my cheap
converter. The upside is that the picture is great, that's all the video
guys care about anyway :-)

Oh it's great ...'till a plane flies by or a storm front moves
in and the whole thing goes blotchy, stutters, stalls, and
drops out. Thus far my over-the-air digital frequently sucks.
[YMMV]



Later...

Ron Capik

I'm using a cheap set of rabbit ears and I have only 50% or so signal
strength most of the time. The SD channels get a signal with anything
over 30% or so here, but the HD channels want to have at least 50%. I'm
sure that I wouldn't have any dropouts if I actually got a real antenna.
I'm about 20 miles or so from the towers and they are up on a hill.

[Badmuts]

Thanks all for the suggestions. I might try the "sync by hand and hope it
stays in sync" method. But i've had bad experiences in the past using this
technique with 2 digital multitrack recorders synced with midi.

I wish i could just interface a couple of cameras to the daw and record them
to tracks in Nuendo like i would with the audio tracks.

Will also try asking in the video groups and/or hiring a few pros. A friend
of mine is a pro camera man at national tv, coming to think of it.

Thanks for thinking along.

Bm

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:44:59 +0200, "Badmuts"
wrote:

Thanks all for the suggestions. I might try the "sync by hand and hope it
stays in sync" method. But i've had bad experiences in the past using this
technique with 2 digital multitrack recorders synced with midi.

But you'll find it does work in practice with dv cameras.


I wish i could just interface a couple of cameras to the daw and record them
to tracks in Nuendo like i would with the audio tracks.

You can. But the program you record to won't be Nuendo and the
hardware required will be expensive.

Will also try asking in the video groups and/or hiring a few pros. A friend
of mine is a pro camera man at national tv, coming to think of it.

He will know how to do it "properly". Which will be VERY expensive
:-)

You (and some friends) can do this. You'll have great fun and a great
sense of achievement. But you'll need to invest a LOT of time.
Obviously the "money" gig mustn't be the first time you test your
technique - you'll need at least one practice run. If you're
interested enough and have the time, go for it. If not, pass the job
over to someone who HAS learnt to do it.

[Scott Dorsey]

Badmuts wrote:
Thanks all for the suggestions. I might try the "sync by hand and hope it
stays in sync" method. But i've had bad experiences in the past using this
technique with 2 digital multitrack recorders synced with midi.

What kind of experiences?

I wish i could just interface a couple of cameras to the daw and record them
to tracks in Nuendo like i would with the audio tracks.

Will also try asking in the video groups and/or hiring a few pros. A friend
of mine is a pro camera man at national tv, coming to think of it.

He will probably have timecode. This means he will either give you a
timecode signal as an audio tone, or he will expect you to have a timecode
source on your recorder that he can "jam" synchronize with his timecode
source.

In the timecode world, all the cameras have timecode sources, the audio
recorder has a timecode source, and they have all been synched up before
the event. It's still a good idea to slate takes anyway, just in case.
--scott

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

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On 5 Jun 2008 11:08:30 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In the timecode world, all the cameras have timecode sources, the audio
recorder has a timecode source, and they have all been synched up before
the event. It's still a good idea to slate takes anyway, just in case.

What a lot of timecode sources! Is anything receiving it?

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On 5 Jun 2008 11:08:30 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In the timecode world, all the cameras have timecode sources, the audio
recorder has a timecode source, and they have all been synched up before
the event. It's still a good idea to slate takes anyway, just in case.

What a lot of timecode sources! Is anything receiving it?

Everything has a local timecode source, and they all receive their
own local timecode. So you wind up with a dozen different tapes or
files, each with local timecode from each recorder... but since they are
jammed together and they all have accurate reference clocks, they don't
drift enough to be a problem.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Badmuts wrote:
Thanks all for the suggestions. I might try the "sync by hand and hope it
stays in sync" method. But i've had bad experiences in the past using this
technique with 2 digital multitrack recorders synced with midi.

What kind of experiences?

The usual think with these recorders is that MIDI time code only tells
the slave when to start. After the slave gets started, it doesn't look
at the incoming time code again, other than perhaps to assure that it
hasn't drifted too far off and it should warn you (usually by dropping
out of Record). The two recorders "in sync" actually run on their own
clocks. If the word clocks for the two reorders aren't synchronized, the
tracks on one will eventually drift out of sync with the other. It's
usually not a problem over the length of a typical song, but can be
noticeable at the end of an hour-long program.

This problem can be cured if both recorders are running off the same
master clock source or if one has a word clock output and the other has
a word clock input (and you know how to use them). Some multitrack hard
disk recorders can sync their word clock to video black burst, which can
also solve the problem.

It's all about understanding the requirements and having the equipment
that will fulfill them.




--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Richard Crowley]

"Chel van Gennip" wrote ...
I think you need help for the video. It can be done with a number of
independent modern camcorders, and synced later during editing. Make sure
every camera records some sound too for syncing,

This technique works remarkably well with modern equipment.
I do it often.

and don't forget that every 10m distance is about one frame audio delay.

OTOH, at 10m (or more) you can't *see* one frame of
lip-sync error! :-)

[Don Pearce]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Chel van Gennip" wrote ...
I think you need help for the video. It can be done with a number of
independent modern camcorders, and synced later during editing. Make sure
every camera records some sound too for syncing,

This technique works remarkably well with modern equipment.
I do it often.

and don't forget that every 10m distance is about one frame audio delay.

OTOH, at 10m (or more) you can't *see* one frame of
lip-sync error! :-)



But at least it is vision leading sound, which is fine. Sound leading
vision by even a single frame is just unbearable.

d

[[email protected]]

On Jun 5, 1:56 pm, Don Pearce wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Chel van Gennip" wrote ...
I think you need help for the video. It can be done with a number of
independent modern camcorders, and synced later during editing. Make sure
every camera records some sound too for syncing,

This technique works remarkably well with modern equipment.
I do it often.

and don't forget that every 10m distance is about one frame audio delay.

OTOH, at 10m (or more) you can't *see* one frame of
lip-sync error! :-)

But at least it is vision leading sound, which is fine. Sound leading
vision by even a single frame is just unbearable.

d

I do this all the time too. In HD video particularly, you CAN see 1
frame out of sync, and even if the audience can't they will be
distracted by there being something subtley wrong with the show. To
hold sync between any recorders they need to be looking at the same
clock source. That source can be boxes like the Ambient Clockits, or
simpler means in which TC or composite video from a master camera is
used to clock the digital audio convertors. Without this clock
connection sync can be ok for 20 min max, and will drift considerably
over the course of a show of a few hours duration. An easy way to do
sync with professional cameras is to use the TC output as a clock
source on the ADCs, the way MOTU and etc boxes do. I've rolled for 3
hrs plus in dead sync this way. If the cameras do not output TC (and
most smaller cameras don't), you could use composite video from the
master cam to drive the audio equipment's clock. The main thing to
remember is that for audio recording on prosumer type gear (MOTU etc),
the problem of video sync is twofold. First is the instability of the
camera's timebase, which, w/o using lockit boxes or an elaborate
genlock setup is out of your control; and second, that the time base
of your own audio gear is very sloppy unless you are using something
very high end. In situations where I can't get any kind of sync or
clock feed from the cameras I make sure my audio clocks are dead on
sync by using a stable clock source of my own, such as a Sound Devices
recorder's TC or WC output or something equally TXCO and stable. If
you have drifting camera sync (and you will, probably) AND drifting
audio sync then you could have real trouble. If the audio stays
constant then the resync to the video is doable, if tedious. To have
long-term sync w/ a recorder like the Alesis you must figure out how
to get it a stable wordclock signal--it is not stable enough on its
own for a roll of that duration.

Philip Perkins

[Richard Crowley]

Philip Perkins wrote ...
I do this all the time too. In HD video particularly, you CAN see 1
frame out of sync, and even if the audience can't they will be
distracted by there being something subtley wrong with the show. To
hold sync between any recorders they need to be looking at the same
clock source. That source can be boxes like the Ambient Clockits, or
simpler means in which TC or composite video from a master camera is
used to clock the digital audio convertors.

Which assumes that your video and audio equipment are
capable of genlock and/or handling SMPTE timecode.
The OP's description sounded like he was using much
more modest equipment.

Without this clock connection sync can be ok for 20 min max,

But if you don't have at least a few edit points in 20 minutes
of program, it will be so deadly dull that the viewer will fall
asleep and never notice the sync problem. :-)

and will drift considerably over the course of a show of a
few hours duration.

Most (much?) modern consumer equipment is remarkably
good. Much better than even professional equipment of
the previous generation. Even the sloppiest equipment
won't drift so far that you can't pull it back into sync
every few minutes (during NLE post production).

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 12:39 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
Philip Perkins wrote ...

I do this all the time too. In HD video particularly, you CAN see 1
frame out of sync, and even if the audience can't they will be
distracted by there being something subtley wrong with the show. To
hold sync between any recorders they need to be looking at the same
clock source. That source can be boxes like the Ambient Clockits, or
simpler means in which TC or composite video from a master camera is
used to clock the digital audio convertors.

Which assumes that your video and audio equipment are
capable of genlock and/or handling SMPTE timecode.
The OP's description sounded like he was using much
more modest equipment.

No--read again. It does not assume this, and I do lots of work with
DVX/HVX/EX1
etc cameras w/o ext. TC. What I've stated is what we've discovered
over the course of
many shows.

Without this clock connection sync can be ok for 20 min max,

But if you don't have at least a few edit points in 20 minutes
of program, it will be so deadly dull that the viewer will fall
asleep and never notice the sync problem. :-)

As a technician, I leave that kind of issue to the people who have
hired me, who, incidentally, expect to have their video in sync to
their sound all the time.


and will drift considerably over the course of a show of a
few hours duration.

Most (much?) modern consumer equipment is remarkably
good. Much better than even professional equipment of
the previous generation. Even the sloppiest equipment
won't drift so far that you can't pull it back into sync
every few minutes (during NLE post production).

Yes. Much. Like several frames. Things can be pulled back into sync
it is true, and ultimately on concert video sync is in the eye of the
beholder. But pulling the video from 7 or 8 cameras back into sync
over all the cuts in a long show is an extra hassle and costs time and
energy that are usually in demand to get a rough cut done while
interest in the show is still high. There is no reason to start out
working in a way that will make for sync issues later when it is so
simple to reduce the variables with a little extra thought and work.

Philip Perkins

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Teddy D'Bear wrote:
Quoting Romeo Rondeau :
I'm using a cheap set of rabbit ears and I have only 50% or so signal
strength most of the time. The SD channels get a signal with anything
over 30% or so here, but the HD channels want to have at least 50%. I'm
sure that I wouldn't have any dropouts if I actually got a real antenna.
I'm about 20 miles or so from the towers and they are up on a hill.

FWIW, Google: HD1080 antenna. Unless you're trying to pick up something
from way out of town, this works real good for high band VHF and UHF
signals. I have one on perched on top of a bookshelf and it's pretty
reasonable for what I get. I imagine it would do much better on the roof.

Ted

Thanks, Ted... I'll check it out.

[Richard Crowley]

Philip Perkins wrote ...
... Things can be pulled back into sync
it is true, and ultimately on concert video sync is in the eye of the
beholder. But pulling the video from 7 or 8 cameras back into sync
over all the cuts in a long show is an extra hassle and costs time and
energy that are usually in demand to get a rough cut done while
interest in the show is still high. There is no reason to start out
working in a way that will make for sync issues later when it is so
simple to reduce the variables with a little extra thought and work.

Anyone shooting with "7 or 8 cameras" will undoubtedly
be using genlock/timecode equipment. We've gone WAY
beyond the scope of the original question.

[Richard Crowley]

"Teddy D'Bear" wrote ...
Quoting Romeo Rondeau:
I'm using a cheap set of rabbit ears and I have only 50% or so signal
strength most of the time. The SD channels get a signal with anything
over 30% or so here, but the HD channels want to have at least 50%. I'm
sure that I wouldn't have any dropouts if I actually got a real antenna.
I'm about 20 miles or so from the towers and they are up on a hill.

FWIW, Google: HD1080 antenna. Unless you're trying to pick up something
from way out of town, this works real good for high band VHF and UHF
signals. I have one on perched on top of a bookshelf and it's pretty
reasonable for what I get. I imagine it would do much better on the roof.

If only it would fix the lip-sync. :-)
The digital age of video seems to have a whole new
breed of engineers (and management) who don't care
(or don't even know) what "lip-sync" is anymore. :-(

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 06:54:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Actually, HDTV is rife with poorly-synchronized signals, even within common
consumer distribution and display equipment.

The basic problem arises because digital decoders and displays can have
signficiant latency, and that latency can vary.

snipped

The master plan appears to be distribution subsystems like HDMI, that
transfer the video and audio in the digital domain in parallel.

Just re-reading this and wanted to thank you - excellent
clarity and insight. In the words of Conrad Veidt, as Major
Strasse in _Casablanca_, "I expected no less."

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"The technical part is easy, the artistic part is difficult."
-scott

[Richard Crowley]

"Teddy D'Bear" wrote ...
Quoting "Richard Crowley":
If only it would fix the lip-sync. :-)
The digital age of video seems to have a whole new
breed of engineers (and management) who don't care
(or don't even know) what "lip-sync" is anymore. :-(

I'm banging my head on my hand trying to think of the two publications
that
ran some very good articles about thing subject. TV Technology and
Broadcast Engineering, (I think). I might have PDF copies at work if
anyone is interested.

But, yes, there is a "new breed" of sorts in control, and I have a weird
theory about lip sync.

I think that many people in business have grown accustomed to digital
cellphone audio, low bitrate MP3s, Real Audio, YouTube video, etc, that
they don't percieve a problem with sync or quality until the time delay
gets into the hundreds of milliseconds.

I also think that there is so much emphasis placed on video at this time
that some techs, (and management), get caught in what they are viewing and
not paying attention to the sound.

That said, there are a few of us that DO care how the product goes out.

My whole reason for getting back into video was because
of the deplorable state of the audio I was hearing. It has
always seemed like an up-hill battle, and the digital hill
seems to be even steeper.

[Scott Dorsey]

Teddy D'Bear wrote:
But, yes, there is a "new breed" of sorts in control, and I have a weird
theory about lip sync.

I think that many people in business have grown accustomed to digital
cellphone audio, low bitrate MP3s, Real Audio, YouTube video, etc, that
they don't percieve a problem with sync or quality until the time delay
gets into the hundreds of milliseconds.

I also think that there is so much emphasis placed on video at this time
that some techs, (and management), get caught in what they are viewing and
not paying attention to the sound.

I will buy that.
Now, how do you explain the seizurecam, and the popularity of a new generation
of TV shows shot by people who don't seem to be professional camera operators,
with talent who are not professional actors?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
Now, how do you explain the seizurecam, and the popularity of a new
generation
of TV shows shot by people who don't seem to be professional camera
operators,
with talent who are not professional actors?

I don't recall that we have explained the audio equivalent
of the phenomenon, either. (MP3, et. al.)

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
Now, how do you explain the seizurecam, and the popularity of a new
generation
of TV shows shot by people who don't seem to be professional camera
operators,
with talent who are not professional actors?

I don't recall that we have explained the audio equivalent
of the phenomenon, either. (MP3, et. al.)

It's a different phenomenon.

In terms of release formats, people will ALWAYS pick the more convenient
format over the format that sounds better. That's why 45s won over 78s,
why cassettes wound up with much of the market from the LP while prerecorded
open reel tapes died and Elcaset was stillborn, and why the CD took off as
rapidly as it did (even though first generation CDs sounded... not so good).
So it's not surprising that MP3s are taking over as a release format.

MD and DCC are sort of exceptions to this rule, though. You'd have thought
they'd have done better.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2008-06-08 said:
I think that many people in business have grown accustomed to
digital cellphone audio, low bitrate MP3s, Real Audio, YouTube
video, etc, that they don't percieve a problem with sync or
quality until the time delay gets into the hundreds of
milliseconds.
I also think that there is so much emphasis placed on video at
this time that some techs, (and management), get caught in what
they are viewing and not paying attention to the sound.
I would tend to agree with that. If you can hear it all,
it's good enough.
Everybody that doesn't know better is so used to audio that
sucks they just think it's the way things are supposed to
be. AFter all, they ignore the dropouts on the cell phones
and the poor audio, the phase shifted weird sounding mp3
files, after all, it's digital.
"Hey man, I can store my whole album collection on my IPod
and take it with me!! Isn't that just so cool?"

My whole reason for getting back into video was because
of the deplorable state of the audio I was hearing. It has
always seemed like an up-hill battle, and the digital hill
seems to be even steeper.

I would agree. We're in the part of the business we're in
these days because we don't want to compete with the
lowballers and their basement studios, voice-overs with an
sm58 and a soundblaster, etc.
wHEther it be multi-track for later production, a lie
broadcast of the concert or an internet stream we want to
ensure the ultimate customer, that listener/viewer of the
best audio quality possible in his listening environment.
wHether that's a 19 inch screen with one little speaker in a
small room or 5.1.

IF for later production, I"ll do my damnedest to make sure
there's timecode reference or whateer post needs along with
the audio files, even if that means I"ve got to stripe an
audio track with smpte.
IF for live, i'll do my utmost to remind those in uplink
land that sync between video and audio *is* important to
some viewers, no matter what the bean counters tell them.

REgards,



Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:58:31 GMT, wrote:

"Hey man, I can store my whole album collection on my IPod
and take it with me!! Isn't that just so cool?"

On my day-job I get to listen to the album collections
of guys in their twenties, played on their i-Phones as
loud as the little buggers will play.

Ya wouldn't think that would be very loud, but sometimes
the choice of source material makes it seem deafening.

I'm just glad that *we* weren't like that, back in
our day....


Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck