|
|
Posted by Spex on 10/29/06 16:54
carlmart wrote:
> mmaker@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> If that's the case, I'd imagine that a) they have a budget large enough
>> not to have to worry about the extra cost, b) it's easier to run cables
>> from the mike to the DAT (or whatever) and keep it in one place rather
>> than have to keep moving around with the camera and c) it's the way the
>> sound recordist learnt to record sound and they have no intention of
>> changing.
>
> The film industry is certainly a very conservative one. Sound
> recordists certainly have that tendency. My views are mostly a mix of
> directing, producing, editing and sound recording, and I try to balance
> between them in practical and quality terms.
>
> Basically picking up the images or the sound has not changed as much as
> you think. It's still a question of picking up the cleanest sound you
> can get on your dialogue, so you don't have to dub it later. The tools
> have become better, particularly lapel mics and radio mics, but where
> to place your microphones is still basically the same as it was since
> talkies came into the picture.
>
> It's basically a question of control and organization. You control your
> mic positioning & levels and organize where you will be recording. The
> better you do that on location, the better you will turn out during
> editing.
>
> If you will be using your camcorder (DV, HDV, Beta, whatever) for
> interviewing one person or two, there won't be much trouble. As long as
> the mic is on the person/s or over it/them the pick should be fine.
> Setting levels is a different matter, but limiters may protect you from
> unexpected peaks.
>
> The question I am raising is that the MPEG is just adequate, but not as
> good as it could be. And you don't need that much to make it better.
>
> You don't need an additional person or too much equipment to improve on
> that. As long as you acknowledge that you can improve on it. Whether
> that importance to you is 1% or .0001% or 30%, it's only a matter of
> how much you want to have guaranteed as being the best you can get.
>
> Once again: if you think HDV audio is enough for you, go for it.
>
Prove your point. All you have done is spout exactly what the other
loons do on the subject without giving detailed information as to why
MP2 is inadequate. If you are to be taken seriously you have to do
better than glib statements.
I am getting the feeling you have very little knowledge of how people
are using HDV and MP2 audio in production. Anybody who thinks MP2 is
not adequate for production environments are likely not settle for any
on-board audio on any camera. Camera audio sections are necessarily
compromised and will _never_ (and was never meant to) compete with
dedicated mic/mixer/DAT audio capture. To say MP2 is inadequate is to
completely miss the obvious.
Ty Ford is an aging voice over clown who is a self appointed internet
myth spreader who has an overwhelming superiority complex. Don't be
taken in by his measurebating. There is an excellent thread on
creativecow where his superiority complex got the better of him. It's
an excellent read...
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|