On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 07:43:53 -0800, "secondst"
(The sentiments of others posting responses to this
may not be unfounded..., but, nonetheless, here goes...;-)
>I have an upcoming video shoot for a seven minute short film. I'll be using
>the Sony TRV900. It is a fictional narrative piece with mostly dialogue, but
>with some music and sound effects. Unfortunately, I don't have more time to
>learn all of the things I need to know to avoid ending up in post-production
>hell so any help on these questions would be greatly appreciated. I know
>some of them will sound inane, but I'm trying to adhere to the no stupid
>questions approach. I enjoy researching this stuff, but since I'm locked in
>to shooting in a week and a half, I have little time to do that and also
>prepare for what I need to do as the director.
Whew!!! ;-)
>SOUND - Others I know who have used the equipment I will be using (this is a
>short film workshop) say that 19 times out of 20 the shotgun/boom mike that
>comes with the equipment provides the best sound input. But, apparently that
>20th time, the mike that attaches to the camera works better. I'm sure it
>depends on what's being shot (camera movement, actor movement, etc). Since
>the camera only accepts one audio source at a time to record to the MiniDV
>tape, I've thought about renting a DAT machine. My understanding is that I
>can tape two track simultaneously in which case I could tape both the boom
>and the camera mike and make the choice in post. Is this right?
Yes, and EQ and mix them in post - this works well. An
alternative I sometimes use: use a good .5X wide-angle
converter and get in close - for "non-pro" productions,
the sound (with some "gain-riding" and other adjustments)
from the camera mic can then be quite good. Another
alternative: get a Radio Shack dual-mono-to-stereo 1/8th"
mini-plug adapter and run a shotgun mic mounted on the
camera on one channel and a wireless lav on the other
(adjust and mix in post). A mini-disc recorder can be
cheap and serviceable for use as a second sound recorder.
>DAT - If the DAT does what I believe it does (see above) what else does this
>trigger? A mixer (not a person, but the device)? What are the advantages of
>a mixer? Can't I just record the sound raw (unmixed) then clean it up and
>adjust levels in Premiere? I have Sound Forge XP 4.0 (came with my
>Soundblaster Live card). Haven't really had a chance to delve into it. Would
>it be better at some tasks than Premiere?
Maybe, but most of what you need is available in Premiere.
I would mix then, rather than while recording...
>BODY MIKES - A couple of instances I may have to use them. Any things I
>should be aware of that could be problematic?
The obvious: noise from rubbing clothes, visibility...
>TIMECODE - If I use the DAT do I then need timecode and does that mean I
>need a timecode generator on the set? Will a timecode generator put timecode
>on both my DAT and the MiniDV tape simultaneously as I shoot? If so, would
>this necessitate a digital slate that shows the timecode? Also, how easily
>will this timecode import into Premiere if I'm using DVRaptor? And also into
>Sound Forge if I end up doing that?
Use a clap and a voice cue for each shot - this makes
synch. pretty easy in Premiere....
>DIGITAL SOUND - For the best possible quality of audio, I assume on the
>camera I set the sound to 16 bit. Is this 44Khz or 48Khz or is this an
>apples and oranges thing? What would the DAT be and do it and the camera
>need to be set to the same? Although, I guess if I end up using the DAT I
>won't need to record sound to the camera. What about resampling and is that
>always best avoided? Also, does sound come into the DVRaptor via the
>firewire as well or is that strictly video? If it's only video, is the audio
>coming from the camera as digital or analog via the RCA jacks? I have the
>digital daughtercard for my Sound Blaster Live card. Is it better to bring
>sound in through that or would it simply be the same as bringing it through
>the Raptor? It has SPDIF input via RCA jacks. Would whatever the preferred
>method be (Raptor audio vs. Sound Blaster daughter card audio) go for camera
>only sound as well as if I do end up with the DAT machine?
>
>Has anybody thrown up yet?
Almost......;-)
I will try to sort out the above...
The camera should be set for 16-bit (48KHz) rather than 12-bit. The DAT may be at 44. Premiere (and others) can handle inconsistent sample and bit differences, but it
is best to preview tracks to hear them the first time
(not doing this, with EQ's, etc. added, is one way to
choke Premiere...;-). FireWire transfers picture and
sound together (and the audio outs from the camera are
analogue...). If the digital audio input on the SBL is
truly digital throughout (I've heard it isn't...), there
may be a slight advantage in transferring the DAT digitally.
>LIGHTING - I will have an NTSC monitor on the set. I don't know jack about
>color bars other than to know that they're used for calibration. What is the
>process to calibrate so that what I'm seeing on the monitor is what I'm
>actually getting? I know the camera can generate color bars. Where does that
>come into play? Also, once I'm calibrated, since it's digital, does that
>mean all through the process, if I'm happy with what I saw on the monitor on
>the set during shooting, that's what I'll get as an end product, with the
>exception of any analog (i.e. VHS) dubs?
"Can-o'-worms"...;-) Unless your calibration gear is really
first-rate, trying to calibrate may do as much harm as good
(many may disagree with this...;-). Do the best you can
(the TRV-900 fold-out screen is the best I've seen for
judging color balance). Nothing is "right" on all (most?
many?;-) monitors - you need to establish your own standards
(unless this is "real" pro work, and you have access to
good tools for doing this - but look at how much TV networks
and local stations vary in color balance - bleah!;-).
>ILLEGAL COLORS - I saw some posts on this forum that said people had colors
>that looked fine in DV, but then caused problems when they did VHS dubs. I
>have a website link that has a post from a television engineer about this,
>but it was a bit over my head. Are there some basic color choice guidelines
>so as not to run into problems? Also, if from my NTSC monitor on the set I
>then output to a regular TV set, will I see on that TV set if there are any
>such problems since it is also analog or does it have more to do with the
>range of colors VHS tape can handle.
The last - bright reds may "buz", as may pure orange - and
yellow is a toughy color... Go ahead and shoot what you
want, then if the VHS dubs have problems, use a decent
video EQ to desaturate the color a bit, if necessary,
while making copies (if the number of copies is small).
You can also take your 7-minute finished AVI file back into
Premiere and adjust sharpness/color balance/saturation/etc.
to make another master that copies better to VHS (this is
probably the best way...).
>FILTERS, ETC. - One of my scenes will require diffusion. Since this is my
>first film/video I'm reluctant to commit to diffusing via filters on the
>camera as we shoot since I feel it is something I can do in post (via After
>Effects or whatever).
Yes.
>If I'm planning on using Cinelook and Cinemotion to
>give it a more cinematic look, am I degrading my image (ie. color range,
>contrast, etc.) by heaping diffusion on top of that or would diffusion in
>post be no different that using a filter on the camera on the set? I don't
>want to commit to something on the set if I can have room to play with it in
>post.
Good plan...
BTW, I've never understood the appeal of "film-look"...
Video is its own thing, and in some ways, it is superior
to film - why degrade it to make it look like third-rate
"film". Either pay for film and get its advantages, or
enjoy the (different) advantages of video... (others will
disagree...;-).
>Also, I have access to a post house that has Cinelook and Cinemotion
>with an Ice accelerator card. By adding diffusion or any other additional
>filters in post am I asking for many more hours of rendering or will it be
>small compared to what Cinelook/Cinemotion will require. I'll have two days
>to experiment and render.
Dunno... Sounds like to major a production to do in the
time allotted - a motto I too often ignor is,
"KEEP IT SIMPLE!!!". If your budget is high in both time
and money, then....;-)
>LETTERBOX - I want letterbox also for a more cinematic look. Once again my
>inclination is to do it in post, but my reasoning may not be sound. The
>camera will shoot 16:9, but my understanding is it's not a true 16:9 since
>some of the pixels toward the left an right edges are apparently "stretched"
>(probably using some algorithm that makes an optimal compromise) in order to
>fill out what I understand is a greater number of horizontal pixels in
>digital television. This being the result, I'm guessing, of CCD's in the
>camera that are 4:3. I wanted to avoid shooting using the camera's 16:9
>because I guess this stretched look is sometimes noticeable in the image.
>I don't have to be 1:8.5 to be exactly cinematic. 16:9 on a 4:3 television
>is enough letterbox for me. If I understand things correctly, it seems even
>if I letterbox in post, at some point the picture will still have to be
>stretched/blownup because of this greater number of horizontal pixels in
>digital television. Is this right, and if so, is the camera doing the best
>compromise so that I might as well shoot in 16:9. Also, if the camera is
>stretching the outer pixels to make 16:9, when I show it on a 4:3 TV is
>there a little bit being cropped on the sides because of fewer horizontal
>pixels on a 4:3 TV?
Hmmm... Another mystery...
You are working with a good, but still marginal, medium
for top-end display. Reserve all the image pixels you
can! ;-) Which means, forget letterboxing, since it tosses
out much of the picture area (or use it occasionally, with
Premiere's "clip" filter to give the effect, but use the
whole 4:3 area most of the time). Again, this seems overly
complex, unless your production has a real budget...
>While my video will mostly be seen on 4:3 televisions, what is my ideal
>approach so that it will look it's best if also shown on a 16:9 digital
>television. I don't want to end up with slivers of black at the top and
>bottom on a 16:9 television. Also, for suitable viewing on both 4:3 and 16:9
>TV's, how do I determine my safe area? It's probably clear I'm really
>ignorant about what's going on here.
I would ignor this issue, and maximize the quality within
the 4:3 format...
>VHS DUBS - If I've created the best possible quality digital image and sound
>and I have a quality VHS deck, is there any reason to believe my VHS dubs
>from my DVRaptor will be of lesser quality than if I send them to a
>professional dubbing house? Do they use a waveform monitor for dubbing? I
>only have a vague idea of how a waveform monitor is used and when it is
>used.
Chances are, if you optimize your master mini-DV tape for
your VHS VCR dubbing, you will have a better product than
the average dubbing house will produce - but maybe a really
custom (and expensive) house can beat your quality...?;-).
>I thank you for your tolerance of my long-winded post. I found my last
>long-winded post was helpful to a number of novices like myself because it
>covered a lot of related territory and answered a lot of questions at once.
>I hope that this post serves a similar purpose. Once again, any insight into
>these questions is greatly appreciated.
One person's view on the above (mine...) - others will
differ in their advice (and be right [too? ;-])...
Good luck - and "K-I-S"!