[Harlan Rumjahn]

Another thing you can do, is go to the Cut Page and simply drag and drop your clip from one part of the timeline to another part. You have to do this in the top timeline (without the video pictures), and it will behave like the magnetic timeline in FCPX.

The only drawback is that if your project has a ton of clips it’s kind of hard to see where you’re dragging and dropping into. But if you get it wrong, you can always correct it by referring to the lower timeline that has the video previews.

Hope this makes sense!

[Harlan Rumjahn]

That’s a great idea to use Davinci Resolve. Its stabilizer works well once you understand the settings and engage in trial and error with those settings. There are great tutorials online for it.

Another idea is to do it manually using Blender, which is also a free program. If you’re not already familiar with it, then you’re in for a treat. There are tutorials online for using Blender to stabilize shaky footage too.

Good luck, and don’t stress over that one clip that 90% of people won’t even notice! I know how it can be, though 🙂

[Harlan Rumjahn]

Good question, since there’s no magnetic capability, like in FCPX, unless you use the new Cut Page in Resolve 16. It’s good in theory, this new cut page, but doesn’t work that great if you have a long timeline with lots of clips, then it’s hard to see what clip you want to move and where you’re moving it to.

That being said, the workaround I use is to place the timeline pointer (I don’t know the name for this vertical line that you move around to cut clips and make edits on) at the point you want to insert the clip. Then you press alt+Y, which highlights all of the clips on and after the pointer. With all the clips highlighted, you slide them to the right to create an opening for the clip you want to insert.

In that opening, you drag and drop the clip from the other part of the timeline. If you made the gap too big, there will be extra space in that gap once the clip is dropped in.
To get rid of that extra space, you click on that extra space, then press Shift+delete. This will delete the space and the rest of the highlighted timeline will move “magnetically” together to fill it.

Now you’re left with the gap which was created where you dragged the clip from. Simply shift+del this space, like above, and the rest of the timeline will fall into cover that gap.

It’s kind of a lot of steps, but nothing is as user friendly as FCPX, in my humble opinion. As an editorial, I’d say that people often mistake complicated ways of doing things for something that is better, or more advanced, or sophisticated, or whatever. But often I find that the simple ways of doing things are the most elegant, most effective, and best. Sorry, that’s just me on my soapbox!

[Harlan Rumjahn]

Hey Gabe,

You’re welcome!

I mostly don’t disagree with what the other posters have said in their responses, but you have to 1) take into account, like what Bruce said, what you will personally accept as “usable” audio to you, and 2) experiment on your own, or listen to samples if you don’t have the mics themselves, to see for yourself what you will accept.

I have done a lot of experimentation and have found to be true what I have described in my first response above. I suspect that both Bruce and Ty are extremely acute in what they listen for when they are hearing audio — and kudos to them for that! — but what I understood from your post was that you wanted something that would produce excellent audio for home movies and/or documentaries. Probably my ears aren’t as attuned to the subtleties of audio as those of audio professionals, but I can say that you will most likely be able to get audio that is better than just good enough, if you keep the on-camera mic about 3-4 feet away from the subject and keep the ambient noise to an absolute minimum.

I’ll say again that in the conditions where your ambient noise is low, you probably won’t be able to tell the difference between the on camera mic and one boomed from above (I’ve tested this a number of times). Now, if you are in an indoor environment, I think it is difficult to get movie-quality audio no matter if the shotgun is on the mic or directed from above. You have those reflections that the other posters have been referring to. I’m not a physics person, obviously, so I can’t tell you exactly why it is that shotgun mics sometimes don’t work too well in an indoor environment, but I can say that ANY microphone doesn’t seem to work too well in an indoor environment when it is not close enough to the subject (this proximity is a very important point). You end up getting this reflective, echoey quality to your audio that is unpleasant and home movie-sounding.

I know Bruce doesn’t agree, but I have found that when I’m outdoors in a quiet environment, the quality of my audio increases when either booming from above or having the shotgun mounted on my camera. I have personally been able to step farther away from the subject and still get good audio. I think it has something to do with there being no reflective surfaces around, and also the lack of, or minimization of, ambient noise. As has been mentioned, if you can keep the signal above the noise, you can often capture great sound, and I think outdoor environments somehow provide a low ambient noise due to lack of reflections, or whatever. Of course I’m not talking about the outdoor environments of a busy city, or standing near an air conditioner or any of the countless number of man-made humming generator-type machines that surround us wherever we go in the modern world. (if you keep your ears open, you’ll here these machines EVERYWHERE)

The bottom line is that you have to try it on your own to see. We can all give advice from our own experiences, or reading, but for your purposes, it sounds like it would be a benefit to try and see what works for you. That is what I ended up doing in the end, and I’ve been pleased.

I’ve also experienced getting sucked into thinking I need to spend a lot on a good microphone. Probably this is the case if I’m making a movie for the big screen. Maybe. But I do strongly believe that if you place the microphone correctly, and get it close enough to the talent, and keep the ambient noise down to a minimum, you can hack your way to professional sounding audio without blowing your budget on one sweet-A microphone (but we’re all tempted!)

The truth, I think, is that expensive microphones don’t do magic. No matter how great or expensive a microphone, it’s going to come down to placement and proximity that is going to make the biggest difference in quality of sound. This is, of course, given that your microphone isn’t a complete piece of crap ???? From there, the characteristics of the sound also depends on your microphone choice. Again, we are somewhat getting into personal preference.

It seems, for instance (at least to my ears), that there is a certain sort of “Hollywood big-budget” characteristic of dialogue audio that is produced by certain microphones. This is why I have said that I’m not a big fan of the NTG-4, which is supposed to be a better microphone than the more entry level ones that Rode makes. It does produce great sound in many peoples’ opinions, but to me it doesn’t give that sound I personally like the best. You have to listen for yourself!

Here is a video that may be helpful to you in making your decision. The gentleman that made the video has made a couple of other ones, and I found them to be extremely useful in mic considerations. He tests some of the well-known expensive microphones side by side in real world environments. And he also tests the cheap NTG-2! If those videos teach you anything, it probably will be that spending tons on a microphone may not be the best use of your money. This is to a certain point, of course, since if you buy a too cheaply made microphone then the audio will be beyond what you can make professional sounding. But it goes the other way: Up to a certain point in audio quality that you can squeeze from a microphone, paying more won’t get you much farther. Believe me, I’m not rich, so I have to consider what I can stretch my way to!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE8Tj8Rl0HU

I hope this is helpful, and I always love reading these audio discussions! I’m not a professional, but I do love focusing on getting good audio in my little projects. In my opinion, good audio is more important than good anything else ???? Maybe there’s an audiophile hiding somewhere deep within me.

Have fun everybody! Good luck Gabe!

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

[Harlan Rumjahn]

I have a Rode Videomic Pro Plus on top of my BMPCC. I’ve also had lost of experience using off camera audio set ups with booming a shotgun (Rode NTG-2), or other recorders — dual system audio. Additionally I’ve put the NTG-2 on top of my camera.

I can say, from lots of experience and testing, that if you want usable sound for things like home movies or documentaries, then mounting a shotgun on top of your camera will absolutely work. If you are pretty close to your subject — no more than about 3-4 feet, depending on your environment — then it can be difficult to tell the difference from a mic boomed from overhead. Quiet outdoor environments will give you the ability to be even farther from your subject and still get good sound. Also, you have to be cognizant of any sound coming from behind your subject, since the mic on your camera will be pointed in that direction too.

Everyone seems to knee jerk the response that on camera mic mounting is not good. But, a more nuanced answer will take into account the distance and the environment in which you are using such a setup. Following those few simple guidelines above — with your personal experimentation for what’s acceptable sound to you — will show you that audio from a mic mounted on camera will often produce great results!

As far a the NTG-4 is concerned. You can listen to samples online. I think Philip Bloom does a review of that mic. In my personal opinion, that mic doesn’t sound much better than the NTG-2, if at all. I prefer the NTG-2 sound, which is similar to the Rode Videomic Pro Plus, by the way, in its sound. The NTG-4, in my opinion, doesn’t have that warmth of sound that you hear in dialogue from movies.

If you’re going to buy a new shotgun mic, I would advise to spend more to get a better mic than the NTG-4. I’d say a mic around the $1600 range would suite your needs. Go online and watch the shotgun mic comparison reviews. Any mic more than that price range will likely give you an increase in quality that is minimal, as I understand it.

Good luck and have fun!

[Harlan Rumjahn]

Other than curves, everything you said you want to do in FCPX can be done, and done easily. But, yes, I agree that you have to become familiar with some basics of FCPX to begin with. Once you get the hang of it, you’ll be happy.

The “tracks” are kind of still there! If you add different clips of audio and give them different roles (you have to learn how to use roles, which is really easy, but maybe watch a short tutorial to get the idea) then those audio clips will be placed in their own tracks below the timeline. FCPX also gives you the ability to rearrange the orders of the different roles. So, for example, you can bring the music clips right up underneath the timeline if you’re editing the music. Then if you want to edit dialogue, you can bring those dialogue clips right up beneath the timeline.

The color board does NOT suck, by the way. If you try to use it, understanding the basics of color, then you will see it is pretty powerful. Contrast can be adjusted by using the exposure menu, and you can even adjust the midpoint of the contrast by using the gamma slider (out of the three sliders/circles under the exposure tab).

I hope this helps you to not lose faith. You’ll be happy if you stick with it and try to learn.

[Harlan Rumjahn]

I used to always send the final edit from FCPX to Resolve for my color grading. I had done this for years and was mostly happy, but it was always a pain because of having to cut and paste back in the audio with the effects (audio and video) in FCPX and also having to roundtrip to and from Resolve again if I needed any editing/color correcting changed.

So I decided to just do all my color grading in FCPX. Wow, much easier, and the results are the same, once you get used to using the color board. I don’t think, for most projects, using Resolve adds anything to color grading.

I wonder if many others have discovered this.

Maybe you can give it a shot and see what you think.

Happy editing!

[Harlan Rumjahn]

Hi, this sort of thing can be done in the free 3d software called Blender. There is a tutorial on almost exactly what you are asking! The problem is, you’d have to understand Blender first. I think, though, that the 3d programs are all pretty similar, just different buttons and layouts to do the same things. So if you’re adventurous, and it sounds like you are, you can maybe watch the Blender tutorial and then try to do the same thing in your 3d program of choice. Have fun!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K4TTNm9b2I&t=176s

[Harlan Rumjahn]

Hi Jenn, I have a setup and method of working that is very similar to yours. I love being able to control everything, but it is a pain in the butt much of the time I agree 😉

My workflow is pretty chaotic, but it seems to work okay. I record all kinds of audio and video and, just like you, have way longer audio files. I don’t label anything. At the end of the day I dump all of my audio and video files onto my computer (MacBook Pro) and start labeling the audio files. For example, if I shot a scene in a bathroom, I would label the audio that I captured there as “bathroom”. Like rocket science, eh? 😉

Each day of my project I create a folder for that day and do the same thing. So at the end of 5 days I’ll have five folders, each containing a bunch of video clips and labeled audio files.

The fun part is the edit. I edit the videos together, not caring yet about the audio. When the edit is complete then I go back and match the high quality audio to the scratch audio that came with the video files. This way, basing the audio I need off the edit, I can go directly to the portions of the audio in the audio files. I can skip the part about syncing all kinds of audio with video that I won’t be using. It’s a targeted way of getting the audio.

I found that in FCPX it’s not that hard to do a scrub through the audio file–happens in real time by scrubbing the timeline indicator over the waveform of the file–find the portions I need, then lift them out and drag them down to my timeline. From there it’s manual syncing, but that’s no big deal, just brainless (which I like ;).

I hope this helps you. Good luck!

[Harlan Rumjahn]

Yes please! An explanation/tutorial would be wonderful! Thank you!