Audio recording on Sony HVR1

Greetings, I am new to the forum and am shooting my first documentary film as my first project.

I just purchased this camera and love it thus far:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...527&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

My question today is about audio recording via this camera. I just saw Mike Mills' documentary <em>Paperboys</em> and I was incredibly impressed with the quality of audio with which he recorded his subjects. I didn't see any mics attached to the subjects, so either he was using the on-camera mic (for some of the scenes the audio sounds directional, and I think this was the case) and/or he used boom mics. Unfortunately, I don't have a crew (you can laugh now for me shooting a film without a crew, I know it's a crazy notion). That said, it will be me, my camera, my tripod, and my subjects - no boom mics.

With that in mind, what would be the best audio situation for these shooting conditions?

On camera mic or a lavalier mic? I'd rather do on camera mic to save costs, but if lavalier mics will sound infinitely better, I'll spring for the extra gear. If you think I should go with a lavalier mic, what brands> models are the best for this kindof purpose?

Thanks for any advice you can offer and I look forward to being a part of this community.

-Sloane
 
I recently had to shoot a Pepsi commercial for a contest without a crew. It's actually kinda fun not having to put up with anyone else saying "Well, why don't we try this..." or "Hey, I have an idea!".

But, it was all camera-audio, unfortunately. But looking at that (sweet) camera, I'd proabably go with the on-camera mic. If all the subjects are indoors, or in semi-controlled enviroments, I don't think it would be a huge problem. But I'm no sound guy.

By the way, welcome.
 
Thanks, Spatula. It's great to have two affirmations of being able to shoot without a crew. It'll be a controlled indoor environment where I'll be shooting. Is there a better place on the forum to ask audio queries?

~
 
I've done docu stuff without a sound guy and my experience is that it's going to increase your chances of having sound issues in post by about 90%.

The problem with on board mics are two fold -- one is that they function by capturing everything in front of the camera -- whereas with a boom you can filter out a lot of the low level background noise -- secondly, the mic is on the camera and therefore will pick up camera noise and any sound the camera operator makes.

It's not impossible to get passable sound this way and you've got more latitude with a doc than with drama, but you're going to kick yourself in post if the best shot of the whole shoot is lost due to poor sound.

I would suggest that before you start your shoot, you set up some test shots and try the mic in the situation you're planning to shoot -- then you can hear for yourself if it's going to work.
 
The other thing you can do is switch the camera mic out with a camera mounted shotgun...this will get you better off-axis cancelling...but you will still have the problems of camera noise.

If you can mount it somehow to be up and pointed slightly downward, you will get better sound than straight ahead...a shotgun (hypercardioid) mic picks up sound directly in front of the microphone...if you have it level with the ground, that will be everything infront of the mike...including wind in leaves and people walking behind your subject.

If you can get it pointing slightly downward so the only things in front of the shotgun mic are your subject and the ground...you have very few things for the mic to pick up...the other option is to point it skyward...the chest cavity should be the target.

You can also get a wireless lavalier (depending on the type of shooting you're trying to do). Getting the microphone closer to your subjects will get better sound for you no matter what kind of microphone you're using...Your audience will forgive just about anything you do to/with the camera (re: Blair Witch)...they won't forgive bad sound as easily. If you have some money to spend, improve your sound with it, either with wireless lavs or a nice shotgun mic.
 
Oops- I just wanted to correct what I said earlier. When I said "on camera mic", I was looking at that sexy picture of the camera, with the mic mounted on the frame. That's what I meant by that, not the camera's audio system. Phew. I almost looked like a complete boob there... hehe. I am a boob.
 
sloaneparker said:
Loud Orange Cat, that is re-assuring! Where can I see your work?

link at the bottoms of most of our posts.

I did a bunch of days with no/almost no crew as well on my feature. They all had honest and legitimate reasons they couldn't show up.
 
I'd like to throw a wrench into the gears here with yet another consideration!

The HDV camcorder is going to use MP3 compression on the audio track. IMHO, that is bad. I would suggest that you record a backup audio track using a separate recorder. A laptop works fine, or a minidisc recorder.

Based on my experience, I would never use the camcorder's built in microphone(s) for anything important, but I use an external XLR mic mounted on the camera (using a special mount with a dampening mechanism) whenever I'm working alone and moving around too much to setup booms, etc.
 
Yes, sorry I spoke in haste. What I was saying was simply that the audio is highly compressed (384Mbps). Some say it is virtually lossless, and maybe it is, but I'm skeptical of any compression scheme.

You are correct, though. I had MP3 on my brain.
 
Yes, sorry I spoke in haste

It's easily done -- I've done it here any number of times.

All digital recording is compressed in some form, video and audio -- some compressions are better than others.

I don't think the audio recording on this machine is going to cause undue problems for docu purposes -- in fact a little compression might help with the on board mic situation.
 
All digital recording is compressed in some form, video and audio -- some compressions are better than others.

If by this you mean that digital audio is always a sampling of the real thing, then yes. However, PCM audio uses no compression on the sampled data. 48Khz, 16bit stereo is 48,000*2*2 (192K) bytes per second. 384Kbps is about 5 to 1 data compression (in addition to being a sampling of the analog source), which is not terrible, but it is a lot different than Linear PCM encoding.

a little compression might help with the on board mic situation

Are you confusing audio compression (compressor/limiter which is used to control dynamic range in an audio signal), with data compression, which is used to reduce the space required to store the digital data? No data compression that I know of improves the audio quality.

Being a real novice at film production, I generally feel like a mouse among giants on this forum. However, I'm a software developer and an electonics engineer. I have written my own compression and decompression software, my own image filters, my own chroma-keyer, and lots of other software in my 20 years as a professional software developer. In this area, I do have a strong background. Just so you know I am speaking from a technical perspective. If, in practice, nobody can tell the difference between 16-bit PCM and 384Kbps MPEG1 compressed audio, then I guess it doesn't really matter.
 
You could well be right -- my area of expertise in sound isn't the technical side, but working as a producer in professional recording studios -- and my real skill is being able to discern minute differences in sound quality, by ear. (Except in certain frequencies -- where I'm deaf -- ironic or what) -- So personally I can hear the difference in quality between different CD players -- and I can really hear the difference between analogue and digital.

In a pure sense there may be advantages in completely uncompressed sound recording -- there is only one real question:

Will this camera deliver broadcast quality sound?

Answer -- Yes

The issue about sound quality is going to be affected much more by microphone and poor technique than it ever is by the compression.

The other thing to remember is that with audio -- more isn't always better -- uncompressed sound isn't going to automatically sound better than uncompressed. Audio is way more complicated than that.

As long as the sound is clean -- that's all that matters

If it came down to a choice between recording the sound separately uncompressed and having a good sound guy positioning the mic properly, watching levels etc -- then I can guarantee that having the sound recorded properly is going to score massively over having the audio uncompressed.

Not all problems can be solved by faster data rates -- skill is always more important than the equipment.
 
Clive, I don't disagree with you on any of these points. I've done enough audio production to know that camera motor noise, low audio levels, poor microphone quality / placement, etc. are the real killers of audio tracks. I was simply clarifying the technical points. Please forgive me if I seem argumentative.

I will give you the point that skill is more important than equipment, but you are still limited in some ways, by your equipment. You can tell a story with an old VHS camcorder, but your poduct will look a lot better on high def.; assuming the same level of skill. There are also different requirements for different types of shooting, of course.

Getting back to your point about analog vs. digital. The difference you hear isn't necessarily the result of "compression". At least I've never heard it called compression. When analog audio is sampled, the upper limit of frequencies that can be accurately resolved is determined by the sample rate, and dynamic range is limited by bits per sample (which is why most studios now use 192K sample rates at 24 bits/sample). Reducing the sample rate, or bits per sample would result in a lower data rate, but I think that falls under the heading of digitization quality, rather than compression. There may also be an inline compressor circuit to prevent or reduce digital clipping, but that is another matter.

Anyway, this is all about symantics. I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you 100%. Let's do lunch. :)
 
If you dont have a crew and have to be in the shot, get a directional mic like at least the ATR-55. At least that will shut out most of the extra audio and pick up your subject better than some on camera mic.
 
Please forgive me if I seem argumentative.

No Problem -- I didn't think you were being argumentative -- you made some good points and actually, as you can tell, audio is one of the things that I'm really interested in -- in fact I very nearly did an MA on the use of Binaural Recording for film sound track -- with the intention of breaking the current audio conventions and creating a 3D audio landscape. But that's getting off the point.

As to the difference between analogue and digital in the sound recording business -- all I can say is that there was a definite drop in the richness of the audio when recording studios went from analogue to digital -- when the only change was the actual medium the signal was recorded on. -- Sound quality then deteriorate over the next four years -- many of these changes in quality directly related to the difference between linear analogue recording techniques and non linear digital. In basic terms -- stuff could be done in the digital environment faster, by people with fewer skills and there was a resultant drop in overall sound quality.

Now whilst it's true that equipment does place limitations, I would argue that in a battle between an unskilled person with state of the art equipment and a skilled person with "inadequate" equipment, the skilled person will always turn out a better product.

So although an SVHS camera would never be considered suitable for production, I guess I'm saying that I believe I could make a better film with it and $500 than some people could with $2M and a Cine Alta.

But you're right, we're getting off the point, let's have this conversation over coffee next time I'm in what ever city it is you live in. ;)
 
Lavalier Mic

Greetings, after thinking it through and doing some research, I think I am going to go with a lavalier mic situation. I will be interviewing mostly elderly folks, so having the mic as close to them as possible I think is the best option for capturing quality sound. Granted, a boom mic would be nice and ideal, but I have no crew for this project so I have to work with just myself, my equipment, and my subjects. That in mind, a lavalier mic seems like a good solution/workaround.

After some research, this one seems good:

http://bestpricecameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=193385

For folks on the forum who have used lavalier mics, which ones do you recommend? Are there any good online resources where I could learn more about their intricacies and minutiae? Also, pitfalls to avoid or tips/tricks advice?

I'll be inputting the film's audio into this camera:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...527&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Your 2 cents is much appreciated.

Thanks.
 
I have this cam too, shooting a cinema verete style documentary. The on camera mic works fine for me in most circumstances. What will be the particular instances you will be using this for?
Sara
Gotham Hyperspace Productions
 
Back
Top