Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Ask The Tapers => Topic started by: divamum on October 12, 2006, 09:52:05 AM
-
I recently received a DVD of a performance that I also taped myself (I was performing, but had somebody running my rig out in the house). I used CMC8>iriver. Recordings aren't bad, althuogh the acoustic came up a little "tinnier" than I'd like.
I ran the DVD last night and was very surprised at how different it sounded! Would a video camera likely run hypercards or something? I noticed how much less audience noise and less acoustic was in the sound and, most importantly how much more PRESENT the voices sound relative to everything else! Also, I think it had an automatic limiter (there's one place I think I can hear it adjusting - not a clunk like somebody turning down the volume, but more like somebody sort of "walked in front of it" at that point).
Would be interested in what y'all think. Once I rip the DVD I can pull sound off it for comparisons, I guess, but in the meantime.... discuss. Educate me! :)
Thanks!
(edited for typos. Need COFFEE.)
-
I'm not sure what type of video camera was used for the taping, but typically most prosumer to professional level camcorders will use a highly directional shotgun mic (super-cardioid) to pick up sound. This type of mic would pick-up less crowd noise. As for the automatic limiter, whoever was running the camera probably just set the audio to the "auto" setting which will cause major fluctuations in sound qulity as the music would go from quiet to loud. You should always set your camera audio to the "manual" setting and pick a good starting level and adjust as needed.
Finding out the model of camcorder used to make the DVD would help the most at answering your questions correctly.
Hope this helps,
-John
-
The videographer was a 3rd party who I don't know, so doubt I can get tech specs from him (and, to be honest, I am SO pissed at the result I don't think I dare talk to him, especially given what he charged us for copies - the SOUND is great, but he completely f***** up the latter 12 minutes or so by adjusting his aperture to the wrong light source, meaning that my performance is in the pitch black and might as well be a voice over. I wanted this for my demo - good performance, too darnit! - but now? No way).
Thanks for the info. Shotgun makes sense given the lack of audience/ambience on his recording and the overwhelmingly loud crowd on mine. Does a shotgun also make distant things sound "closer"? That's the thing that struck me most when I listened.
-
Does a shotgun also make distant things sound "closer"? That's the thing that struck me most when I listened.
Yes, a shotgun mic is designed to bring the audio "closer" or more up front. This is the same reason that various tapers use hypercardioid mics if they are located far from the sound source or in a chatty venue, to bring the sound more up front.
-
especially given what he charged us for copies
YOU were performing and he CHARGED YOU for COPIES?
:o :o :o :jawdrop: :yikes:
-
especially given what he charged us for copies
YOU were performing and he CHARGED YOU for COPIES?
:o :o :o :jawdrop: :yikes:
I think he was a videographer and not a hobbyist. He probably got hired to film the event.
-
especially given what he charged us for copies
YOU were performing and he CHARGED YOU for COPIES?
:o :o :o :jawdrop: :yikes:
I think he was a videographer and not a hobbyist. He probably got hired to film the event.
Exactly. Or at least, he was hired to do it (although I think he may still have been a hobbyist!)
I'm still mad though. In classical it is really REALLY hard to get this kind of stuff to use as self-promo etc because of orchestra issues, union restrictions etc. This was a rare occasion where it was a good company, but part of a summer festival and thus NOT union. I think the thing I'm most annoyed about is that he didn't A. acknowledge the f*** up (umm... hello?) and B. didn't give us a concession on the grounds there were "technical problems" (ie, he didn't bother to watch his monitor and/or didn't clue in to the fact the performers might like to be SEEN on the final product).
Anyway, yeah. That's wha' happened. I have to admit I really LIKE the presence in the sound he got, but I can't begin to imagine how one would stealth shotgun. I can't believe it would even be possible to positoin them reliably enough (ie pointing in the right direction) given just HOW stealth you have to be for classical....
Thanks guys. I'm sitll working on ripping the DVD to get some sound only; I'll see what i can come up with once I'm not so damned busy (so much for October being "quiet" - yeah RIGHT)
-
The problem is that the production actually used projections on the back wall for much of the "set". For the rest of hte show. the guy picked an aperture that allowed both to be seen, but for whatever reason (grrr) from my big aria to the end he (or the camera) has adjusted to favour the bright backlight, thus rendering the playing action on the stage in the pitch black.
My husband (bless him) ripped the file onto hte hard drive yesterday and we actually have a copy of Premier we... uhhh... "borrowed"... from where he teaches so I'm going to see if I can tweak it and salvage it, but I'm not too hopeful... (sorry - singer whining- NOTHING more childish and pout-y than a singer who winds up singing The Big Aria IN THE DARK!!!! :) :) :)
-
Whatever you do, DO NOT use "brightness," instead you should use "LEVELS". Crank up gamma, then crush the blacks back to being black (cause increasing gamma will cause the blacks to start washing out). You can also mess with the whites on the levels, but that doesn't work as well. And, yes, this will add GRAIN, but it might make it watchable. I use this technique all of the time when videoing in super-dark clubs. I open the aperature all of the way, and it's still too dark, but in post, you can use levels to squeek out a bit more light (but NEVER use brightness, it'll look like ass).