If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?

[Jim Andrada]

Oh go ahead and get an old press camera - they're really fun and can indeed be used hand held (although if truth be told the Bronica probably delivers a better result hand held than the 4 x 5 Graphics do.)

But you haven't lived until you've taken a flash equipped Graphic 4 x 5 and handed it to a waitress and asked her to take your picture.

Even better if you can capture a video of the reaction on your smartphone.(which I haven't done so far!)

Going price for an old Graphic in good usable condition ready to go is around $300 +/- and there are 120 backs for them. There are also Grafmatic magazine backs that hold 6 sheets of 4 x 5 and switch films with a pull - push motion.

In no time at all they'll think you're the reincarnation of Weegee who used to have a mini darkroom in the trunk of his car so he could develop the 4 x 5 negs and beat the other news photogs to press.

[Jon Fairhurst]

This topic is too much fun for the audio section. :)

Let's continue the medium and large format discussion here...
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/open-dv-...ml#post1755187

[Roger Shore]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

This topic is too much fun for the audio section. :)

As this thread has developed, and diversified (or gone off topic, depending on your viewpoint) you at least have somewhere else to go.

Discussions on piano recordings -- or microphones -- or mixers - or audio processing - or -- well, you get the idea -- all end up in the one section "ALL things audio"

Which sort of brings us right back to the thread title!

Still, as it is the Digital VIDEO Information Network, I'm guessing photography discussions probably come higher up the list than audio ones ?... :-)

[John Nantz]

There have been so many comments that have been made that I would have liked to reply to but haven't but I couldn't let this one by Jon Fairhurst go by:

Quote:
"But looking back at the title of the thread, while 2/3rds of video is audio, zero audio is needed for photography. But photography is a great skill to develop for creating good video. And good video leads us back to the need for great audio. :)"

Generally speaking, and I'd underscore "generally", with a still camera one has time to capture an image while with a video camera it's capturing images on the fly, again "generally speaking". Sure, an action shot with a still camera one would have to be on the spot (or have a motor drive), and with a video camera, capturing a performance where one knows in advance what will be happening, it is planned. But for composition and exposure the first stop really should be with a still camera. Lens focal lengths, sharpness, color balance, grain, etc. can more easily be learned with a still camera.

Personally, I don't mind someone diverging from the original topic to talk about how it was or how it used to be because a part of being here is to have a good time, at least I hope it is. And throwing in a bit of humor now and then is a plus too.

My first composition training started in the 5th grade as I finally went to a large school. Until then it was one-room and two-room school for grades 1 through 8. In the 5th grade the school had at least 3 room, maybe more, of 5th graders. Due to the number of students in the school we had an art teacher and a music teacher that taught those specific subjects in all the classrooms. We learned about perspective, areas of interest ("thirds" although I don't remember this term being used), colors (blues in shadows, yellows on the sunny side, etc.). This was all new to me and it sunk in.

When I went to the sixth grade it was to another small school, this one having four rooms with two grades in each room. The principal had an art "contest" with grades 5 through 8 and thanks to my 5th grade art training I won first place. The top places were to go to "county" but my picture never left the school because the principal wanted it for his office. He said he was afraid it would get lost if he sent it.

So, going back earlier than what Jon said, I'd proffer that the art of video could go back to drawings and paintings, then to a still camera, and then to video. And oh my god, now we have 3-D! I can wait on this for a bit as I've got enough expense with single lenses.

With video there is another element - audio. Yes, A-U-D-I-O !!!

My opinion, and I'm not alone on this, is that audio is a CRITICAL part of the video. Not an afterthought.

The title of the original thread was basically lifted from the book "Final Cut Pro X," a "Visual Quickstart Guide". And this isn't some little short paperback, this thing is over 500 pages long! There are THREE chapters devoted to audio. In the preface to Chapter 11 the authors wrote:

"Editing your picture is only half the story. Your sound is just as important. In fact, a famous movie editor once quipped that sound is two-thirds of the picture."

They go on to say:
"You'll likely spend much more time finessing and working on your audio edits than you will on your video."

For me, that is really true and I've been around audio and hi-fi for many, many years. Audio should not be an afterthought. One person way back said that with a video camera you have telephoto lenses but with audio you don't, or words to that effect. Well, in fact, there are parabolic reflectors for mics. Spys use them. Sports photographers use them. Even astronomers use them. So, yes, there are "tele-what?-mics"?

Just like one needs to deal with lights and darks, color shifts (daylight, tungsten, fluorsents, overcast skys, late evening daylight, etc.), one must deal with how the audio is captured. It isn't "just a mic."

Looking at the holistic effort of making a video the audio is a very important part, hence, I can sure see the need for development of more subject matter options in the audio section. The question is, what categories should there be? I'm no expert on this so I'd defer this to others.

Questions:
Who makes the decision on this board?
Can this happen?
Do the people in charge here feel that audio is not really a significant part of video and those interested in better audio should go elsewhere?
Should there be a whole new board "Audio for video"?

Let's raise the bar and promote better audio with our videos.

[Greg Miller]

When I think about a lot of the audio threads I've read here, my impression is that they can't be categorized.

For example, someone might post a question, "How do I get rid of such-and-such a noise?"

Answers might include EQ, various NR tips and tricks, specific software packages, and then branch out to mic placement, suggestions to turn off refrigerators before recording the track, and a lot more.

One recent (dreaded) thread covered in-camera mixing, the difference between "phantom" and "plug-in" powering, connectors and connectivity, mic patterns, ambience, mixers, and a lot of other detritus.

I could give a lot more examples, but I'm sure you get the idea: audio isn't "black and white," it's a whole spectrum of issues.

A fair number of questions are posed by relative neophytes and they don't even know exactly what to ask. For example, someone may ask about "static" when they really mean noise, or distortion. Sometimes this isn't even clear until the OP uploads an audio sample, several posts later. If that question were posted in the "static" forum, what would you do... move it later to the "noise" forum, or the "distortion" forum? Too confusing IMHO.

Then the other readers chime in with a broad range of suggestions and comments... some of which may seem, at first glance, to be unrelated to the original question but which, in fact, do adddress the original poster's problem.

So how would you categorize most of the threads you see here? Personally, I wouldn't. I'd leave them under "All Things Audio" and let it go at that. It's a good educational resource!

[Jon Fairhurst]

One thing that's really missing on the audio-side is music. The typical music post is "where can I get 'royalty-free' music". And by "royalty-free", they usually just mean "free".

Then again, this is a deep area that is best left for composers and musicians. Interested people should check out http://www.vi-control.net/forum/index.php? and spend at least as much time there as here. Expect to spend at least $1k on software and a year or more of learning before being able to do one decent, short cue - even if you already have a music background.

So I don't know that a film music area would be all that helpful. VI-Control is all about making music for moving pictures, but they have no areas for lights, camera, and action. I don't even recall them discussing dialog recording.

Anyway, if there was a film music area here, it would barely scratch the surface. And most people would probably just be looking there for free music anyway...

[Jim Andrada]

Good point - I really think that the audio and video have to be simultaneous parts of the conceptual phase - so many times I see things where the video and audio actually counteract each other. Sort of like hard rock sound track with video of quiet streams and floating clouds.

Of course it could work in the right context so there can't be a hard rule saying don't mix hard rock with floating clouds.

But waiting until the video is in the can and then scrounging for music can lead to a disastrous pairing.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Since music is added at the end of the process, composers often get a bad deal.
- "We had a month of pick-up days shooting but we need to release our horror flick before October. The edit is still in flux but here's what we have so far. Can you deliver 90-minutes of wall to wall music by Saturday night?"
- "We went way over budget shooting. Can you live with just your name in the credits?"
- "I was going to hire you but I found a student who will do it for free."
- "Can you make it sound just like Stairway to Heaven? Sign here that you're responsible for any copyright issues."
- "Do you know of any sources of royalty free music? You know, totally free music?"
- "There were too many notes."

Composing for a living is a tough gig. I'm sticking with my day job!

[Geoffrey Cox]

With you all the way there Jon. I'm a composer but the day job pays the bills.

Re the original post I don't see why a few simple divisions aren't possible: recording (microphones, recorders etc), post production (editing, audio processing etc) and maybe music, sound design. The last one is interesting as the aesthetics of video is rarely discussed much on the forum generally even in those areas where it might be - the conversation always gravitates to practical concerns. I think it's a shame and I'm not sure why as at the end of the day, content is king!

[Renton Maclachlan]

I'd like a discussion of music but don't know the questions to ask...and anyway, most of it seems to be subjective and thus very difficult to communicate. I got a book on 'sound design' to help me but couldn't understand it at all...I don't think I got one thing from it...total waste of money and unlikely to be able to sell it... :-( ...supposedly it was by an expert...

I have Cinescore with heaps of theme packs and find that by flipping through them and listening for a few seconds to each, I can tell whether it 'fits' or not...but couldn't tell anyone why...(worked out ages ago - by myself - that for some stuff, cuts have to be on the beat etc...)

And yet...music is so much an essential part of any video/film experience, but is often almost transparent - you may not even be aware you're hearing it!!! Probably if the music is 'right' you wouldn't 'hear' it - unless specifically listening for it. Very interesting...but hard to quantify or explain...

[Colin McDonald]

Originally Posted by Jim Andrada

Good point - I really think that the audio and video have to be simultaneous parts of the conceptual phase - so many times I see things where the video and audio actually counteract each other. Sort of like hard rock sound track with video of quiet streams and floating clouds.

Of course it could work in the right context so there can't be a hard rule saying don't mix hard rock with floating clouds.

But waiting until the video is in the can and then scrounging for music can lead to a disastrous pairing.

I agree with you there Jim.

Musing on that subject, it occurred to me that one of the most shocking aspects of the Kubrick film "A Clockwork Orange" for me was the deliberate use of inappropriate music for some of the most violent scenes. (Verdi and Beethoven have never been quite the same since!) The experience of seeing that in the cinema just after it came out sensitised me to the use of music which conflicts with the images on screen and I've since appreciated earlier and later examples where this technique was employed to telling effect.

Unfortunately there are quite a few examples of it being employed by mistake (or ignorance, or perhaps even sheer cynicism) in B movies and I've been both amused and appalled by examples of wedding videos where the Bride and Groom have been encouraged to chose their "favourite tracks" and then that unquestioned choice has been the driving force behind behind the edit of the film of their special day - sometimes to quite arresting, though hopefully unintentional, effect. However well cut to the beat, many of these can end up being quite bizarre records of a what seems to have been a fairly normal event. If the customer is happy though...

[Allan Black]

I was a moderator on the Panasonic3CCDuser site for 5 years.

My experience says, with multiple audio forums, there'll be be mixed questions and answers spread across all these forums. The mods will spend their time merging threads to their correct forums and they'll have to leave a link so members and visitors will be able to find the thread again. Some visitors won't even bother.

It happens here now with cameras, the thread starts off with 'I didn't know where to post this so I'll post it here ..'

And visitors just want to scan one audio forum in case something grabs their eye. They might come across a new subject they find interesting and enough of these, they might join up. (And they see members here are polite to each other, that's a major factor believe me, Chris runs a tight ship :)

That's how any site gets new members and they're the lifeblood of the forums, otherwise we're all just talking to each other. If anyone Googles an audio question today, there's a hundred links to follow up. On utube they'll probably *see* an answer to their question, and there are some good demos there.

Facebook and Twitter now swallow up many folks time, especially young ones and they're the people the consumer/prosumer video manufacturers are after, us too.

Cheers.

[Jim Andrada]

Hi Colin

Not quite the same thing but I think the juxtaposition of the baptismal scene and the machine gunning scenes in "Godfather" was one of my favorites. The baptismal dialogue intercut with mayhem was brilliant IMHO

[Allan Black]

Back on the Panasonic site there were 5 moderators, I was the only one in the southern hemisphere, covering the night time
in the northern part of the globe.

For a while it was great, we had the same software as DVinfo although it was an earlier version, and there was a mods private forum.

There was some great threads, and we kept reminding the members to stick to the same topic, so folks searching the web could come across us,
quickly get a satisfactory answer to their question or problem, check through the other threads, be impressed and maybe join up. And it worked.

But in an effort to analyse what 'type' of folks do this and how we should make the site more appealing, we came up with a list,
let's see if I can remember it. (no offence to anyone here)

1. The clever young Steven Allan Spielberg type who's just bought his first videocamera and IS destined for greatness.
Mods private forum comment (MC) 'few and far between unfortunately.'

2. The guy who will reply post to anything you post, even totally off topic.
MC: 'a mild nuisance but hey we need him too'

3. The guy who wants to impress his new girlfriend, bought a vidcam and can't run it.
MC: 'She's got trouble'

4. The prizewinner who won a videocam, scared stiff of being ridiculed but taking a chance.
MC: 'He should have taken the holiday'

5. The pro, just wanting to pass some knowledge on, but an argumentative type.
MC: 'Oh boy!, we need him but watch him'

6. The guy with a young family wanting to video document them growing up.
MC: ' sob let's give him as much help as we can'

7. The guy who thinks everything he posts is hilarious.
MC: 'Let's ask him if he wants to be a mod'

Cheers.