Settle an argument.

Michael Rogers

Michael Rogers

A friend of mine and I have an argument going on about audio.

I have been telling him you will get better audio from a mic hooked up to a field recorder versus hooking it up to a camera.

Can I get some input from you all? (and hopefully Uncle Bob?) THANKS! :P
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Cracker Funk said:
Depends on which field recorder, and which camera.
Click to expand...

There's your answer.

Even really good video cameras have, at best, 16bit/48kHz bit/sample rates and the sound quality will be highly dependent upon the audio components of the camera. The primary job of a camera is to capture visuals, the primary job of an audio recorder is to capture sound; which do you think will have better audio quality?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
The way Alcove explained it to me a few months back was that the H4n or DR100 can record at a higher bit/sample rate.
96kHz was it?

The field recorder records more data (assuming the mic and cord can provide quality input) for the express purpose of being able to tinker with more options in audio post.



To make a visual metaphor: if you record video at 720p that's as good as it gets.
But if you record at 1080p you'll have the option to select a smaller yet specific part of the image without losing appreciable resolution. It could all still look 720p, which is fine, but with more control.
Even better, if you record at 2K you could select a specific area and keep it at 1080 rez.
Even more bettererer, if you record at 4k you could select a specific image area and keep it at a whopping 2K resolution!

But if you insist on using that poopy little 720p image sensor... well...
Likewise, if you insist on using that poopy little 48kHz on-camera audio recorder... well...

Not to mention you can't monitor, verify/confirm, and adjust audio input to the actual camera.
At a certain production level it's just a PITA.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Michael Rogers said:
I have been telling him you will get better audio from a mic hooked up to a field recorder versus hooking it up to a camera.
Click to expand...
Ask your friend where you hook up a mic to a film camera.
Ask your friend why on professional shoots using professional
video cameras no one hooks a mic up to the camera.
Ask your friend why on reality show shoots there is always an
audio recordist.
Ask your friend why on news gathering there is almost always
an audio recordist.

In other words, if all professional shoots do not have the camera
record the audio, there must be a reason. Does your friend have
a feeling why that is the case?

Make sure he buys the good pizza and the best beer.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks for all your input guys.

Another question on this topic...


Is shelling out the $300 for a Zoom or DR100 worth the better audio for a student filmmaker?

I see it as an investment in the future. He says it saves money and time (time being that you don't have to set up another piece of gear) and you don't have to sync it up in post. He notes that at professional shoots they don't record to camera. But feels at our level it is unnecessary. (we are both film students roughly about to start our senior thesis film). I feel like if we know how to get professional, why stay at a semi-professional level?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
As an ultra-low-budget camera operator, I LOVE not being tied-down by those pesky audio cables. Yes, it is a worthy investment, for more than one reason. I've done it both ways, and I cannot overstate how much better an experience it is to record audio separately. Plus, it doesn't take any extra time to set up separate equipment. You have someone on sound, setting up sound, and you have someone on camera, setting up camera. How does that equate to more time? As far as post is concerned, the time spent syncing is minimal, and totally worth it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Michael Rogers said:
He says it saves money and time (time being that you don't have to set up another piece of gear) and you don't have to sync it up in post. He notes that at professional shoots they don't record to camera. But feels at our level it is unnecessary.
Click to expand...
This is very different than your feeling that you will get
"better" audio recording to a dedicated audio recorder.

Now your friend is correct. You can save time in both
production and post by recording directly to the camera.
If you are paying people (or even just feeding them) you
have a boom op and not both a recordist and boom op.
These are compromises that need to be considered. This
isn't the what is best, question you first asked.

For many years I used a mic attached to the camera. I
still do on many shoots. You can get fine audio but you
lose audio control.

Just to place it in context; it's only in the last 15/20 years
that syncing audio in post has been thought of as an extra,
time consuming step. And that ONLY when shooting video.
Syncing audio to picture has always beed a normal, standard,
expected part of post production.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Michael Rogers said:
Is shelling out the $300 for a Zoom or DR100 worth the better audio for a student filmmaker?
Click to expand...

YES...but you can spend almost 1/2 ( $169 ) and still get great sound w/ the Tascam DR-40 which will get you 96khz - 24 bit sound AND it can record in Dual mode where it will record at the set levels and allow a duplicate track recorded at say -12db lower in case the levels get too high on the original track you will have a safety
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The friend speaks

I am the titular friend having the "argument" with Michael. I thought I would finally make an account to explain myself. (and stop lurking on the forums).

I have recorded to both camera (usually the hpx170), and used a field recorder (zoom h4n).
They have both given me good sounding audio, and any complaints I would have would have been human error. (i.e levels not correct, not finding the good distance between mic and mouth etc.)

Even in post when I am editing, I have no problems and I can do what I need to make it sound well. Syncing the audio is something I would like to not HAVE to do, every time I shoot, (and I would rather not buy a program like Pluraleyes). If it is a really wide shot where I cannot be tethered to the camera, then yes I would use a field recorder. That rarely happen to me though.

Now the field recorder may have higher sampling rates, (96kHz), but I find that unless you are dealing with classical and string instruments, there is nothing noticeably different. I record dialogue, and I certainly cannot hear the difference between something recorded in 96kHz to 48kHz.

I find that using an audio recorder is nice, but not really necessary to me. Is recording to the camera the best? I suppose technically not, though it depends on the equipment. Does it do a good job? I think (and hear) so.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Welcome Barry.

I completely agree with you. As you can now see, the original
question about which is “better” is not the accurate issue.

Both are fine. Recording to an audio recorder using a dedicated
recordist is better, but a good boom op attached directly to the
camera can give you excellent audio.

Barry Wilson the 1st said:
Syncing the audio is something I would like to not HAVE to do, every time I shoot,
Click to expand...
I know. All of you who grew up with video cameras and have never
used film feel this way. Syncing up EVERY shot is too unusual to
you. I know you know that for decades this was standard. No one,
even students and beginners, thought about this for a second.

This may be changing back, however. The DSLR's that more and
more filmmakers are using have horrible audio capabilities.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I "grew up" in video production and EFP/ENG style shoots where you recorded all audio in-camera but on really high-end cameras. When I moved to the more cinematic dual system audio recording (mostly to accomodate a 7D) I was hesitant at first but quickly learned that syncing isn't really a big deal. It's not that much more time, and that was before I bought PluralEyes. The quality benefit and time/ease on set way outweigh the extra post work I end up doing to sync it.

The DP and camera crew has enough to worry about setting up shots and lighting and exposing properly and pulling focus and the list goes on, giving them charge of another crucial component isn't something I want to do. Something is going to be overlooked, either the audio or the video because you can't monitor both at the same time. Even with two separate people, one watching camera and one watching video, it doesn't work well because the viewfinder (that on cheap cameras also relays audio info) is only so big. Plus, if you only have one audio guy, how is he supposed to hold a boom 10 feet from the camera AND watch levels? With a bag around his shoulder holding a recorder where he can see it he's in a much better spot.

Now on set, the audio guys have complete control over their world and are focused on mic placement, booming, levels, and even rigging lapels on actors before shots while the DP/Camera ops do their thing. An extra hour on set with a cast/crew of 10 running cables and working around and shooting extra takes because the audio wasn't being watched properly costs WAY more than an extra hour in post for the editor (usually me) to sync up the day's worth of audio. Especially considering pluraleyes which I usually let work while I sleep.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I can't say enough how awesome it was to have a dedicated sound person on set for my last short. He only had one thing to worry about, and I could just let him do his thing and not think about it myself.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
When I was hiring a DP for my first film (he's still my DP 3 films later). He basically refused to take the job unless we ran separate audio. he didn't want to be tethered to the audio cable, he didn't want the audio guy having to touch the camera to adjust his levels, he basically laid it out as a deal breaker.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top