[Greg Curda]

Hi Ryan,

Is all this clear??? It’s important that you understand.

If you are shooting on a digital camera then a production mix track could be sent to the camera. If it were me, I would use Ty’s method of one channel being lower to cover any unforseen peaks. For you, these “mix” tracks will come in with the ingestion process of the camera tapes. Use only one track and mute the other. This is your production “work” track, or “guide” track.

If the sound mixer will use a 788, then the individual mics will be “iso ed” on their own individual tracks to be used later by the dialogue guys. I can’t imagine more than six tracks being used for this unless this is a new Altman picture!! In that case, the mixer should have 2 tracks left to put the “mix” or “guide” track, for safety, in case anything happens to camera.

Your job is to tell the story with picture and dialogue. The production mixer’s job is to capture the best dialogue possible, and give you something good to work with. This is, at the same time, easier and harder with the advent of multi-tracking. In the old days, the mono mix was all there was. Now, we have choices, but too often, this has led to a softening of technique and craft.

Ah, there I go again..haha.. If all else fails, take the primary boom track and use that. You can always request alternate tracks (lavs, plants, etc.) if you have a problem…

G

[Greg Curda]

Hi Yuangen,

The guys are right. But I may offer a suggestion. Concentrate on the portions with sync dialogue and adjust your track (cutting will probably be necessary) to match the lips. This is a long and laborious process, but if your dedication persists, you will accomplish it and you will also get a taste of what we go through for a lot less worthy causes!! Good luck!

G

[Greg Curda]

Thanks, Roland.

Now I’ve just learned that there are 2 different OMFs available, embedded and linked. Could you explain this briefly? Would the difference have any bearing on this discussion?

Also, we are using RED cam. We thought of trying to embed the audio tracks in the ProRes QT that goes to Picture Editorial, letting the editor delete the tracks he doesn’t want, copying the FCP sequences as they are cut, having a sound asst. reconnect the remaining tracks in FCP according to Source TC, then exporting an OMF with everything (no need source TC anymore). Talk about a long run for a short slide!!

Maybe we’re just way over-thinking this, but additional software seems to be a tough sale to upper mgmt. Thoughts?

G

[Greg Curda]

Thanks, Roland…

That looks like a good option…Does this represent a current standard workflow from FCP to PT? Is EDL an option, and if so what is the app of choice? OMF still has some benefits for small projects (TVC, AVP, etc.) where everything is self contained, but ultimately will not work for features, at least not for ours.

I need to build a case for software, and would like to cover the field of options, OMF, XML. EDL, and AAF, although I don’t think AAF is viable yet. Any additional help you guys can give me is greatly appreciated.

G

[Greg Curda]

Hi Ryan,

As far as I know 48/24 is the standard for HDSR. If they actually do a film out, then the mix (Dolby Digital, I assume) will also be at 48/24. The 2 track LtRt, used to make the optical track, is a collapse of the 5.1, and is compressed to fit into analog optical spec. This is (at this point) a fallback track in case the Dolby Digital fails. The optical is the same as the old Dolby Stereo, and decodes to left, center, right, surround.

G

[Greg Curda]

Hi Robin,

I think it depends on the configuration of connections inside the jack as to exactly where they make contact with the plug, and to some extent the wiring configuration (not too many options…). Sometimes a mismatch can work. Other times not. I think you will always get some signal, but couldn’t swear to it because I’m tired and not thinking electrically at this point…haha. Traditional wisdom says stick with the same config for both male and female, mono or stereo…makes sense. And to me, traditional wisdom works.

Hope that helps.

[Greg Curda]

Hi Guys,

Can I amplify a little, because we’re at the root of a situation. Acquiring sound is not as easy as acquiring picture. There are hundreds of picture “looks” that could fly, but sound has far less latitude. People spend years perfecting techniques and building an aesthetic sense of sound. Technology makes our job easier and harder at the same time. Producers (and even some new sound people) now believe there’s a magic plug-in for every ill, similar in a way to the concept that lavs and wireless were magic cures. The principles of effective production and post-production sound have not changed in decades. The massive degree of “control” we have over digital sound produces the perception that anything is fixable. And indeed, those dedicated to sound will try anything to save a track. I have reduced echo by heavy compression. That and 8 layers of backgrounds! It shouldn’t have worked…but it did. I got lucky. It didn’t work the next time. Every situation is different, and every show is a new challenge. We do whatever it takes to make it right. But I think we’re all obliged to foster the “principles”, the established aesthetic conventions, of good sound. There is no shortcut.

Hope I’m not out of line with this posting… Vote Sound!

[Greg Curda]

Hi Robin,

You know, the proof is always “how does it sound?’ I haven’t done the transcription thing for a while, but then it was on cassette (!!!) and no TC. I had a look at your cable, but not the recorder, but I can’t imagine why the only input would be mic level. Anyway, sounds like it’s sorted.

When talking about connectors, make a clear distinction between jack and plug. Or you can use the terms male and female. It makes discussion easier. I forgot what mixer you have, sometimes the tape out is stereo (TRS), sometimes mono (TR). Try to find out for sure, but for now, as long as it works, you’re OK..You might want to lay some test files into a FCP or ProTools session (if you have access), or Soundtrack Pro, to listen and look at the result. Best to make sure you’re getting what you think you’re getting…

G

[Greg Curda]

Hi guys,

I’ve also found that you have to be very specific in your coverage of high gain, directional antennas. Often they can be a nuisance at close range, where an omni antenna would be more useful. I’ve only used them in conjunction with a multi wireless scenario and not with single units. I have sometimes switched back to the stock whips for closer work. I have also moved the whips into the action on a C stand or something with good results (keeping the coax cable run as short as possible). David’s idea of paddle and whip combo might be good for a long, tracking “walk and talk” where you need the range at first, but end up close…If you try it, will you let me know how it works??

G

[Greg Curda]

Hi Bob,

I’m going to echo the sentiments of the guys. Twin MixPres would work well, and you would have the advantage of high quality mic pres and both limiters in the mixer (much better than the camera’s). The 442 option allows you to monitor all channels (via PFL) and send 4 discreet (direct out) to the cam. I have to say that I’m not a huge fan of riding gain too much, because as you do that, your background changes and it makes it more difficult for your dialogue edits to go across smoothly. I generally set the gain (trying to match background), let the dialogue rise and fall naturally, and let the limiters take care of huge, unforseen peaks. Then you know your edits will be smooth (that’s the point of tracking, yeah?) The quality of the limiter is very important. Sound Devices has some of the most natural and effective limiters I have heard. They have never let me down. Just my two cents…

G