[Peter Groom]

Just to add.
Amazingly on a zoom, there ISNT a menu switch between mic and line levels. I found that a 1k tone at -18bdbfs from a line level source means the zoom has to be reduced on the input controls to o.7 on the scale of 0-100.
Amazing i know. But that is what creates the correct recording level without distortion or overs.
OFcourse dont expect a FOH engineer to have any calibrated tone to give you, or even mix to that reference level, but that gets your zoom into the right area for a line level feed. 0.7.
Peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer

[Peter Groom]

Hi I agree that it might be better to move away from HDV via fw, but if thats the camera, I didnt design it!

What additional kit would i need to take an analogue composite or component feed from the cameras phono jacks and get this into an avid.
I dont have anything currently?
Peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer

[Peter Groom]

If its for broadcast Id def suggest 3 personal mics on the cookers and pres, AND 2 slung rifles above the cooking area to provide effects and a little air in the mix on the cookers voices.
Unless this is going to be a regular gig for you, id suggest renting high quality gear rather than buying what you can afford.
Obviously a multitrack field recorder like the sound devices is favourite, but Deva make one too, and Ive had good results with a small pro tools rig recording everything separately onto hard disc, and doing a scratch mix at the same time (ie a rough besic mix of the key elements (voices and effects) live onto video tracks so the editor has something to work with.
As long as everything is time code locked (jamsynced) youll be good to go in post.

Id guard against recording things onto sep machines (like multiple zooms, and trying to sync them later. You WILL end up with things being a few samples out of sync which can cause terrible phase problems and a metallicy sound when you try to balance.
Peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer

[Peter Groom]

In this “less than ideal” scenario.
Id probably multi track it, and then take it away and mix it.
If its acoustic guitars, get them to use internal pickups so you can get a direct feed of them.
Vocals will be a problem but Id probably try with a concealed personal radio on everyone probably in the hairline (preferably a COS11 as theyre really thin and sound great, and a professional Boom op or 2 to drop in a really good rifle mic “just” out of shot from the top. By just out I mean any lower and its in shot. Id have a stereo pair as an airy take at the front, and see how you go. Id record all mics sep onto a pro tools and take it away, clean up each track as necessary and mix it.

BUT i still dont really buy the “this is a one take perf thing”
Performers are there to do as theyre told for the film. Thats hollywood superstars and worldwide hit bands alike. If theyre any good they will understand the process.
is it not more the case that people cant be bothered to do it properly, or the people concerned dont really understand the issues and why the post process is the way it is. If thats the case theyre not going to buy into the multi track technique either (hassle, cost, kit, people).

If youre trying to do this alone, it will only ever be as good as you can make it, but dont kid yourself into thinking it will sound like it was done in a proper feature film. It wont.

Peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer

[Peter Groom]

Yep.
Commercials in the Uk at least are squashed largely as the ad before and after will be. Ill be guaranteed a call from the clients agency wanting to know why their ad seemed a little quiter than a b and c.
The new loudness moves are aimed at allowing dynamic range back into commercials mixes, but as of at this moment there really isnt any enforced policy on this topic in the UK, still just PPM levels.

I certainally have done tv and theatre separate mixes with different dynamic and eq, but I cant comment on the Hollywood feature film boys. Not made it there yet myself!

Peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer

[Peter Groom]

Yes. In the UK broadcasters are very tight on levels. PPM meters are the standard, but now there is a move towards perceived loudness metering in conjunction with PPms . Loudness is all ablut how loud something “appears ” to be rather than what it actually is.
I prefer external hardware metering units as historically they are more reliable, but software devices have improved in recent years, and are of course a fraction of the price.

Peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer

[Peter Groom]

I was just about to suggest that.
If it sounds a little iffy now, wait until you hear it in the theatre.

Pre record, mix, make it sound great, get band to to visual performance to playback.
Peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer

[Peter Groom]

That depends on the use/ audience
Cinema mixes enjoy greater levels and dynamic range to allow for more emotion etc.
TV commercials tends to be much more heavily compressed than programmes.
So with tv ads i mix tighter with less dynamic, and a limiter to ensure no really small peaks will get it rejected by broadacstm as im sailing ON the max line throughout. TV programmes I have more dynamic, but be aware that the listening environment and speakers of the tv audience are much worse than theatres to mix or check your mix on small speakers.

Cinema, I compress /limit much less so, but the listening and delivery levels are a lot higher.

any help?
peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer

[Peter Groom]

Hi Ty
As in my 1st post in this thread. Had i been there Id have insisted

1) the camera man wearing cans all day.
2) a return feed off the camera to cans by me, so i could hear what the camera was recording, and i would have wanted to hear my tone back from the camera on this.
3) A safety back up recording at my mixing position as Ill presume that someone will let you down if at all possible.

Peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer

[Peter Groom]

Whats the lesson from all this?

I always presume that everybody else will cock it up, so when they do, Ive my own solution ready.
Peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer