Hey all,
I got this camera in December and this was the very first thing I shot with it. It took months for my account to become accepted here and I forgot to share it. I thought I would now. Anyway, this is my girlfriend helping me test. It's all natural light and 1 take, because our daughter was asleep in her pushchair right next to where I was filming. It was also very cold so we didn't want to be out too long.

Shot with Sigma 30mm 1.4 then I assume ND1/64, but can't be sure since it was so long ago. I'd never recorded audio for live performance before this. The guitar was recorded with a condenser and then I tried to use my lav for the vocals. Turns our I should have just had the one condenser for both. Learning things like that is the reason we test right?

Joanna Weston - Inside Out (live in the park) - YouTube

Looks really nice, very cinematic and the singing is very good! Cool footage for the first thing filmed with it.

Not so sure about your conclusion on the sound. It's fine and clean, but just a little sterile - which isn;t a criticism, but always happens when the broadcast crews do the same thing. In fact, no way would I try to use one mic. The clip on lav is just too far from her mouth, that's all. It's picking up the guitar too, so your isolation suffers a bit, and you can't do too much with eq afterwards because of the spill.

With the kit you have, the condenser on the guitar makes sense, and then I'd probably have put the lav somewhere near the fur on the hood. The image does look quite nice. Next one has cutaways, and some close ups of the guitar?

Thanks for the comments!

There was a bit of phasing when it came to listening back, which is why I mentioned the audio issues. I've seen a lot of people recording solo artists with 1 condenser which is why I thought perhaps that would be the way to go next time. hopefully it'll be much warmer and we'll get a sitter so we can play around with the setup a bit more for some comparisons.

We were going for the 1 take, totally live vibe, and fear cutaways and close ups would take away from that. Then again, this song is quite long, so a bit of variety would definitely be nice. Maybe we'll try another tune with some extra shots soon.

Thanks again.

Very nice! If you have the ability to isolate the two and the time then that would be the better choice for a paid gig. If you out just having fun then the world is your oyster. But, everyone is different that is what makes us all unique. Do what is natural to you, that is what makes this profession fun. Trying to follow all the guidelines and rules sometimes can make things boring and stressful. Once you have the basics and some experience flying by the seat of your pants makes it worth while. I love to try and be creative myself and push the envelope. I have a TV Show I'm working on and maybe I will show you guys the Sample one of these days.

You might see video people record a singer and a guitar with one mic but you'd not find many audio people do it this way - equally, they might use inappropriate cameras - I guess it's what you know and do.

Multiple mics can cause problems, but usually it's placement that's the key. The problems with audio are usually solved by different mic techniques that the picture people hate because the mics become very overt. Hence why so many videos are mimed (sorry, the less offensive words lip-sync being preferred nowadays with sensitive people).

Not so sure about your conclusion on the sound. It's fine and clean, but just a little sterile...
I think it's excellent for an outdoor audio recording. The reason it sounds "sterile" is because it's mixed in mono. I'd suggest trying a stereo enhancer plug-in in any VST-capable DAW. Here's a link to my favorite (Windows only):

Stereoizer Pro - Free VST - myVST Demo - YouTube

The video, however, is overexposed and low contrast, is it J-Log1 footage? If so, I'd suggest correcting the washed-out look with the Leeming LUT and toning down the background exposure.

http://www.leeminglutone.com/

Ah nice tip on the stereo/mono thing, next time I'll go for stereo for sure. It is J-Log, and funnily enough, I bought leeming a few weeks after this was published.

Having seen similar videos since making this one, I thing being able to see the mic in the shot validates the performance, so next time I'll do it that way I think. take a line straight out the guitar and then have a vocal mic on a stand. That should also give me some nice separation for post.

She's recently written a new song, so watch this space haha.

I'm going to disagree with this notion of simulated stereo in a clean and straightforward song like this. The reason is simply because with one person and a guitar, there really is no width. If you artificially create some, then you have a thin singer and hugely wide and unrealistic guitar. If you are standing where the camera is, then the only real width comes from the fingers of her right hand on the strings, plus some scratchy stuff from her left on the frets. If you stand where the camera is and point at the voice with your eyes closed, then point at the guitar, apart from up and down, the image is bang in the middle.

By 'sterile', I mean clean, precise, hearing all the things happening, wanted or not. There's no colour, just black and white. In the studio, you'd have eq, some processing, so warmth - the video is just clean and very open. So while it sounds ultra real, it doesn't sound like you expect it to sound. Years ago when I worked on Songs of Praise for a while (UK Sunday night religious programme with choirs, real instruments, singer walking down the Welsh hillside etc etc) they started miming so they could prepare the tracks in the studio, because although they could record them on location, it just didn't sound right!

I'm going to disagree with this notion of simulated stereo in a clean and straightforward song like this. The reason is simply because with one person and a guitar, there really is no width. If you artificially create some, then you have a thin singer and hugely wide and unrealistic guitar. If you are standing where the camera is, then the only real width comes from the fingers of her right hand on the strings, plus some scratchy stuff from her left on the frets. If you stand where the camera is and point at the voice with your eyes closed, then point at the guitar, apart from up and down, the image is bang in the middle.
Stereo simulation is not done with simple left-to-right pan controls, it uses psychoacoustic processing to broaden the entire sound field. Listen to the demonstration video to hear the effect for yourself. The reason clean outdoor recordings sound thin is because there is no room reverberation to boost the bottom end and provide a subliminal sense of ambience. That's also why we don't use dry recordings straight from a close-mic'ed vocal as is, we always add reverb and often other effects.

Er, yes - I think I may well have picked that up in the years I've been doing it. You can use whatever processing you like to widen a stereo field that doesn't exist on real life, and it's probably pleasant, nice, wonderful and totally bogus. It's an effect that relies on trickery (not that that is bad normally) but this is outside, with NO reverberation, no reflections, no confusing or conflicting information. My humble, and perhaps outdated view is that these kinds of plug ins have a place, and work rather well, I've discovered - BUT - do not make an outside recording better.

If you want to do this kind of thing, then the images must match - and a 'big' sound isn't right outside.

You can call it "bogus" if you like. Audio engineers call it "stereo".

No they don't. It's simulated stereo, and it does not match the audio you get outside.

Proper audio engineers know exactly what stereo is, and how to simulate it. Care to explain how exactly a voice and guitar outside have any width component? Stick a M/S mic in front and have a listen to the S channel - it will be pretty unpopulated with any audio coming from the sides. Let's call it professional disagreement and move on - it isn't helping the topic.

Proper audio engineers.... etc.
Carry on then, there's always a niche reserved for the vintage approach.