I feel as though I have gotten to the point where I can spot my own big mistakes, but I am looking for advice on how to correct the small mistakes or things that I may be overlooking. Please watch this clip and let me know what you think.

Thank you!

A Paul Story on Vimeo

Most obvious - the uploaded video was interlaced. You need to deinterlace it before uploading to Vimeo and the like.

Hate critiquing others work, especially when it's adequately done, but I'll offer. I feel the lighting is a little hot, either diffuse them a bit or move them a bit further from the top of the subjects head. With that, close up your aperature a bit. Higher F stop. I feel the camera is a bit tight on the subject, either zoom out a bit or something tells me this might be a prime lens, move the camera further back, composition more like below his nipples/top of stomach area. Lastly, is it 24p? Seems to be some motion blur, could have to do with being in tight but otherwise maybe go even up to 60p or faster shutter.


Overall tho, I mean it isn't bad or unusable. I think being too close in would cause the most viewer distraction. Most others could be fixed in post & the motion blur is likely only cause I was looking for stuff & know about it.

Most obvious - the uploaded video was interlaced. You need to deinterlace it before uploading to Vimeo and the like.

Looks something like that. What would cause that anymore? Are you saying this is 1080i and needs to be converted to Progressive? (Sorry, it's just been a while since I dealt with i & p)

Lastly, is it 24p?

I downloaded the Vimeo video (with 4K Video Downloader) to examine more closely. Indeed, it looks like the original footage was recorded in '24p over 60i' format (what was called 'PF24' on Canon HDV and AVCHD camcorders) i.e. when deinterlaced (top field first) to 60p the frames show a repeating 3:2 ('pull-down') pattern - in other words 'telecined'.

To recover the 24p cadence from the upload video file he'd need to delete the replicated frames ('inverse telecine') after deinterlacing to 60p. I've always used AVISynth for such conversions. Depending on the editing software that was used, and assuming the original clips are still available, he might be able to go back into the edit and extract 24p on the timeline in the project settings. If that's not possible, the edited video does at least need to be deinterlaced to 60p before uploading to Vimeo. Haven't used it in a while but IIRC Handbrake uses Yadif for deinterlacing and can be set to double-rate (bob) deinterlace.

I definitely wouldn't leave it as it is. I find the interlace 'mice teeth' very distracting where there is movement.

I'm not sure it's really possible to give a critique here. Subjectively, on this computer, it's fine. Sharp, detailed and apart from being a little 'pastel' which is a taste thing, I see nothing to put on a negative list. Sure, he waves his hands and lifts a knee, but that's just him. You could have gone out a bit, but then we'd see more of his movements. His skin would not respond well to tweaks to saturation etc.

Audio seems good (listening with headphones here). Only a tiny bit of room echo for him which is perfectly fine.

To my sense, the skin tones aren't quite right. Out by only a smidge and need to look a little healthier. Could be that some of the green of the background is being reflected around and this needs to be compensated for, but it's one of things where you need to figure it out the hard way with colour corrections. That last very subtle adjustment will make it look fantastic.

Andrew

Thank you, everyone for your comments. They are much appreciated.
Background...
Canon XF-300
LitePanels 1x1 Spot (key, left), Flood (fill, right), ENG3 (hairlight) - all 5600K lights
Sennheiser MKH-416 boomed mic
Concrete blocked walled (light yellow) training room, ~ 16 ft wide and ~ 50 ft deep. I choose to set up widthwise.
Narrator ~ 4 ft from far wall seated in an arm chair (I like to use this type of chair so the subject cannot shift around too much); camera positioned ~ 6 ft from subject.

I had to eyeball the exposure, instead of using the camera's built in scope as I usually do, due to being rushed to set up. I normally like to have access to the room where the interview will be conducted an hour prior to the interview so that I have time to set up and check everything before beginning. Couldn't do that this time. I do have diffusers and frames for all the lights.

I experimented with changing the exposure in post (FCP X), but couldn't find the right amount of correction. So I left it as it was. Is there a standard for setting up the display brightness when editing?

I noticed the motion blur, too. Camera was set to 24P/1-48th. Should I bump it 30P/1-60th in the future?
Normally, I use a piece of white paper on the hair light to mute the hot spot on top of the head. Didn't bring one with me on this trip, and again, was rushed on the setup.

This is the second time I have read someone write about pulling back more, but I have never read anything that explains the correct framing of the subject during an interview. This subject has a broad chest and a narrow head, so it does look odd. In the future, I will try to frame a little wider, as David suggests. One of my mentors was a former broadcast executive, he always wanted tight framing. :-)

How much head space is best practice? I have my subjects start out with their butts all the way back against the chair so that they are sitting at their tallest, and frame with a couple inches of headspace. As the interview progresses, they move around and slup down. Using the "Rule of Thirds", I start out with their eyes on the upper third line.

As to the interlace/deinterlace... I am not that advanced, technically! :-)

I probably do need to pay more attention to how I export from FCP X. I have not adjusted the FCP X settings, I select File -> Share -> Master File and create a *.mov file. This is then convertered to an *.mp4 using iSkySoft iMedia Converter Deluxe for upload to Vimeo and distribution via NTSC formated USB thumb drives.

The echo off the concrete block walls is very evident when I am asking questions. I was pleased with the sound of the narrators voice.

Any further critic/comments/criticism are welcome. I do appreciate your comments. I want to deliver the best possible product to my clients.

With people with no hair, dimming the backlight is important. I always liked this when using tungsten because dimming also warmed it up. For a little prep project, it's come off quite well.

I wasn’t able to watch but a few comments:
1. I’d use 30p for interviews. 24p is for cinematic style to simulate film.

2. I agree diffusion is helpful to reduces glare for no hair.

3. I don’t care for the position of the subject. I would suggest moving him to the right so he is not centered. I’d also turn him for a more 3/4 angle. Squared up as he is lacks depth and accentuates his wide shoulders. The camera feels like it’s too high this is probably because his posture (head drooping). His head also seems to be elongated can’t tell if that’s the way he looks or because of wide angle view/camera too close to subject. For older subjects it’s more flattering to not get too close. These wider shots require more room and bigger background.

4. Over all it has a very clinical look and feel that you get with background only. I prefer interviews that incorporate the actual setting, ie window, book case, plant, etc. I understand based on restrictions this might not be possible. Like everyone is saying this is good enough but you’re asking about ways to improve.

Canon XF-300...
Camera was set to 24P/1-48th....
As to the interlace/deinterlace... I am not that advanced, technically! :-)


Ah, the footage was shot in native 24p - so it was the FCP X export that was '24p over 60i' then ? In that case, no need for any deinterlacing/inverse telecine. Just export 24p for upload to Vimeo and there won't be any interlace 'mice teeth'.

I have re-edited the original file.

I changed the exposure -10% and formatted the file as 1080/24P

A Paul Story 24P on Vimeo

Let me know how the new video compares to the original 1080i file

A Paul Story on Vimeo

Skin tones are a touch too magenta for my liking. The 'less bright' version really lets it stand out.

Andrew

I have re-edited the original file.

......and formatted the file as 1080/24P



Well, that's how it was shot and no interlace combing, which is an instant improvement.

Skin tones are a touch too magenta for my liking. The 'less bright' version really lets it stand out.


I agree, the global colour balance seems a little cool with a magenta bias. I've never used FCP X so I'm not familiar with the color correction tools that are available. If it has an white balance tool with color picker maybe try sampling off his sweater for neutral grey, say on the light edge of the cuff on his left arm, and see how it looks. Or if Colour Temperature/Tint tools and vectorscope (with skin tone line) are available, adjust the skin tones directly. It is a global colour shift though.

Also reducing the global exposure is not really tackling that glare on his bald head, which remains quite distracting and unflattering. I think you'd fare better pulling down the highlights.

Would you mind uploading a 1080/24p version without the adjusted exposure?

24P 0 Exposure

A Paul Story 24P 0E on Vimeo

24P -5% Exposure

A Paul Story 24P -5E on Vimeo

24P -10% Exposure

A Paul Story 24P -10E on Vimeo

Here is 24P with -5% Exposure correction and Automatic White Balance correction

A Paul Story 24P -5E WB on Vimeo

I don't think there is any way to reduce the hot spot on his head without knocking everything else out of kilter.

The auto white balance definitely helps.

Andrew

Kind of, but now there's a bit of a yellow shift. So that was 'Automatic White Balance'. Does FCP X not also give the option to select the neutral reference with a colour picker/dropper ? Definitely needs tweaking anyway.

I'll look at the uploaded '24P 0 Exposure' video tomorrow and see what I can come up with. I use DaVinci Resolve though.

Bryan, the Manual White Balance dropper wants an area of pure white to reference. I don't have any white in my video! :-)

Yes, the Automatic White Balance did introduced a noticeable yellow tint.

I have adjusted the color in a subsequent edit, bringing down the Master (yellow-green on the left side of the color bar) 110 degrees 0 % to 95 degrees -15%.

I will post that edit later.

Bryan, what did you see that indicated interlacing in the original video?

You guys are teaching me to see things that I previously hadn't noticed! Thank you all!

the Manual White Balance dropper wants an area of pure white to reference. I don't have any white in my video! :-)

But you have what I suspect is fairly close to neutral grey - the sweater.

If it has an white balance tool with color picker maybe try sampling off his sweater for neutral grey, say on the lighter edge of the cuff on his left arm, and see how it looks.

You want to pick a sample that is fairly uniform and receiving direct light from the daylight balanced (5600K) LitePanels behind camera i.e. not areas of shadow or light reflected off his face. Zoom in if needs be.

Of course there are other ways to manually white/colour balance. In Resolve, I prefer to isolate the best 'neutral' reference available in frame with an HSL key, zoom in on it and use the Colour Temperature and Tint tools to manipulate the trace on the Vectoscope. The 'white balance' colour picker does a pretty good job though. Again, I have no experience with FCP X.

what did you see that indicated interlacing in the original video?


Interlace lines, often referred to as 'mice teeth'. It's where there is movement between the upper and lower fields. You don't see those lines in a progressive frame. If you step though the original video (exported as '24p over 60i') frame by frame, where there is movement you'll see an alternating sequence of three progressive frames and two (periodically one) 'interlaced' frames (with 'mice teeth'). That's due to the 3:2 'pull-down' sequence. Where the 60i interlacing combines the top field from one frame and the bottom field from the next duplicated frame, it will change nothing. But where it draws the top and bottom fields from dissimilar frames, and there is movement, the interlace lines will appear.

Example:

Interlaced frame - note the fine horizontal 'mice teeth' lines:

http://i.imgur.com/JIuEdt3.png (https://imgur.com/JIuEdt3)

Next frame - stays progressive (no mice teeth):

http://i.imgur.com/weL2iQO.png (https://imgur.com/weL2iQO)

You don't want those 'mice teeth'.

Haven't had time to play with the '24P 0 Exposure' video. Severe snow storms here around Montreal to contend with.

Thank you for those images. Now I can see what you are referring to and how to spot them!

I will further experiment with the white balance and try what you are suggesting.

24P Master 95 degrees (left side of color bar, yellow-green) -5% Exposure

A Paul Story 24P on Vimeo

Another thing I have learned... I need to purchase a Spyder X and calibrate my monitor.

Thank you, again, everyone! I have learned a lot this week!

Going down a rabbit hole here but a proper color accurate setup, from all my research, requires more than just a probe. You need a high quality monitor capable of displaying the full color and luminance range of your target distribution medium, and for an external monitor, a card/box to take the signal from your NLE to the monitor (i.e. cant just hook up a hdmi cable from external monitor to computer). You should also have perfectly neutral grey walls and a certain type if lighting in the room where you grade because those slight color biases on walls or with lighting will skew your judgement (e.g. slightly blue walls will desensitize you to blue and cause you to compensate by adding blue you dont need, etc.).

Thats for a super nice setup, and probably runs thousands of dollars. Depending on your standards/needs it may well not be worth it but the idea is that if you all of the above you have the highest chance of the most number of viewers seeing what you see on your end.

Without all that you can use the fcpx scopes to at least get it objectively “right”/neutral in regards to white balance and exposure levels. You can use the vs curves to isolate skin and push it more blue or orange til skin tones sit on the skin tone line, waveform to place exposure of various elements in the image where you want them (if you can get good enough separation with the various qualifier tools in FCPx).

Josh! Thank you for those suggestions! I have only watched the Canon video describing the vectorscopes on the XF300 camera. This is the first time I have tried them in FCP X. I didn't know about the skin tone line until you suggested it and I saw it on the scope. That makes life much easier! I also find the curves easier to use than the other methods.

Tell me about the box between the computer and the monitor? I wasn't aware of such a device.
I use a Dell P2715Q monitor with a 2013 MacPro quadcore.

This is as good as I can get it using the vectorscopes...

A Paul Story 24P CC on Vimeo

There's nothing especially wrong with that...at a certain point you get into individual taste (some folks like warmer, some like cooler), and depending on what lights you used, some shots simply can't be balanced as the lights may be missing certain parts of the spectrum, a problem with lower cost LEDs sometimes.

The box I mean would be a Blackmagic box or similar device, but this is for an external monitor, not your typical computer monitor. In other words, a situation where you'd have the video image taking up the entire screen on another monitor, for color grading purposes. That's more for hardcore color correction/grading, which might be overkill for your needs. I'd suspect you have a single computer monitor like most folks, in which case you can investigate how to make it more accurate (perhaps the probe, like you suggested).

If you want a super accurate setup you'd need to do all the detailed stuff I mentioned in my earlier post but for many things, good enough is good enough. I occasionally edit these interview/b-roll pieces for one of my clients and I just eyeball and go by the scopes, and I know that's close enough.

There should be plenty of good grading/correction tutorials for FCPx on youtube, and there's always the free version of DaVinci Resolve if you want to take it further.

Thank you, everyone for your comments. They are much appreciated.
Background...
Canon XF-300
LitePanels 1x1 Spot (key, left), Flood (fill, right), ENG3 (hairlight) - all 5600K lights
Sennheiser MKH-416 boomed mic
Concrete blocked walled (light yellow) training room, ~ 16 ft wide and ~ 50 ft deep. I choose to set up widthwise.
Narrator ~ 4 ft from far wall seated in an arm chair (I like to use this type of chair so the subject cannot shift around too much); camera positioned ~ 6 ft from subject.

I had to eyeball the exposure, instead of using the camera's built in scope as I usually do, due to being rushed to set up. I normally like to have access to the room where the interview will be conducted an hour prior to the interview so that I have time to set up and check everything before beginning. Couldn't do that this time. I do have diffusers and frames for all the lights. .

Hi Ed,

I have some suggestions for you that might help next time. This is all meant to be constructive and kind. In my opinion you are just a few steps away from a polished interview.

First, your comment about winging exposure concerned me. No matter how rushed or what method you use exposure is too important not to get perfect. With a single subject under controlled light it can be done very quickly and accurately every time (without scopes). I suggest you practice with your kit until you are confident it is quick and accurate every time.

Lighting: I believe there are still a few golden rules that should not be broken. Yes there is always exceptions but in a single head interview lighting and camera focus should always be based around the subjects eyes. In the case of this elderly gentleman you had a tough pair of eyes to deal with but that does not change the rule. As you made overall exposure adjustments in post his eyes were disregarded to the point of becoming black beady holes in his face. So lets fix it for next time.

Set direction; In a rush set up like that where I know I don't have time to properly light the background I would have turned the set lengthwise. You had a lot of distance that could work in your favor. A 15 x 50 foot room is a ton of space to light a single head. By putting a lot of the lengthwise space behind him with no additional lights it can fall of to pure black and look like a studio black.

Light fixtures; I don't want to offend you but I am about as blunt as a 1x1 LED spot light. Please see some humor in my comments. I would only choose a 1x1 LED Spot bare faced as a key if I truly disliked the subject and wanted to be as harsh on them as I possibly could. It becomes a weapon at that point, not a key light. 1x1 LED panels are deceptive. They are a very hard source if not treated properly. So I would have used the 1x1 flood as key and the 1x1 spot as fill. Remember you had distance working in your favor.

As we age our eyelids and eyebrows begin to droop and cover up a portion of the eyeballs. This was certainly the case for this subject. The best way to light a face with recessed eyes is to use a key light as soft and large as you can for the situation. Placement is also critical. Generally speaking I run the key lower than I would for a healthy young face. Any height that causes shadows on the eyeballs from the eyebrows is too high. Your high and harsh key light hid his eyes and drew big black lines from the bottom of his nose to the corners of his mouth.

Audio; Even though a Senn 416 is a very good mic it is not a good choice for a concrete bunker. But more importantly the overall quality and feel of the video could be easily improved by fixing your audio. The 416 on the subject sounds OK and then you ask a question and the video screams "Oh no, cheep camera guy audio production!" I believe even the technically uneducated viewer picks up on this dramatic audio change. There is an easy fix to take it up a level. You should be speaking into your own mic. Something as simple as a basic vocal mic like a SM58 you can put right in your grill will work. By properly recording your audio the viewer won't even know if someone is conducting an interview or if its you doing everything. Not who or what matters but it will sound much more professional.

Like someone else said I usually don't respond to critique threads. Its hard not to sound snarky. This is my two cents meant to give you food for thought.

Kind Regards,

Steve

With softboxes you can lower your key to illuminate the eyes without blinding the subject. There is no denying the benefits of soft boxes its just a matter if you can or want to spend the money and time to add them to your kit.

Last year filmed a video testing out led panels with and without light modifiers, never had a chance to fully produce and post it online but here are couple of stills that show the difference in light quality. The same light and camera white balance were used. This particular softbox warms the light.

It's not just about eye shadows but overall softness..the shadows everywhere on the face will be softer and overall the light will "wrap" around the face more with a softer source.

On one man band shoots where your time is limited the built-in diffusion panels on many LEDs or the inexpensive softboxes you can buy, the point being something you can set up quickly, may have to suffice. I have the D-fuse which are maybe 24" squares for my Dracast 1x1s, they look quite nice, to me. Closer you can get the light, the better, to the point of talent discomfort or undesirable hotspots from light being too close.

But if you have more time and are willing to invest, what many folks are doing now (at least on the shoots I'm on locally) is putting their LEDs through a 4x4' diffusion. They make collapsible frames for these can different ways to mount them on regular light stands or C-stands.

Depending on how powerful the LEDs are you may need to gang two or more lights together for the required exposure but the 4x4 gives you a super soft light in a typical position for one interview subject. If you angle it more to the side you can keep the softness/wrap but get a more dynamic look (no so flat lighting across the face).

Some DPs when using a large source like that don't even bother with a fill light/source, just let the key and the edge light plus whatever's bouncing around the room fill in. That'll be shoot specific depending on desired mood, etc. Some clients want a high key look.

And like they said placing the talent as far from the background as you can while still getting the shot size/focal length you want helps with everything.

I wasn't thrilled with the D-Fuse. They are light, compact and very portable. On the down side they're shallow not providing a lot of diffusion and were too big for my panels (not their fault) as a result I couldn't control the angle. They're expensive with the crates but without them the spill is unacceptable. I preferred the Fovitec great diffusion and amplified the light but it didn't have crates.

Like you said the placement is also important. Ideally 2-3ft range. Not only do hard lights without diffusion produce unflattering light they make the subject uncomfortable. Large part of a successful interview is a relaxed subject.

I think the D-fuse are okay for ease of use, and the softness is quite a bit better than the raw panel. My Dracasts allow the yoke to be adjusted such that you can change the angle...you just have to mount the yoke on your stand 90 degrees compared to where you're used to (yoke has both a vertical AND horizontal mounting hole). Goofy, but works.

I don't know that I'd get 2-3 feet away, that's pretty close...you don't want to crowd the subject. Typically I see others (and follow myself) at least about 6 feet away. Sort of leave a "sacred space" around the subject.

NOW, in some more elaborate interview setups, for instance two or more cams where you see both interviewer and subject, yes, I have seen Divas or LEDs armed out more overhead and much closer but for single cam like the example here I'd back that light off. I mean if it doesn't have the output to be that far away with diffusion you do what you have to but I'd probably start at 6ish feet.

Once you start using softboxes you'll find you can't get that far away from the subject unless you have powerful lights. In most residential situations you just don't have the room to move back far. Everyone has their own preferences but most would agree the closer the better in terms of light quality.

Here you can see my setup for the previous stills that was filmed in my living room. (the light shade was obviously closed while filming). The d-fuse on the left and the Fovitec on the right.

Closer the better for sure in terms of softness, but even with a softbox you start to get the obvious hot spots once too close (forehead noticeably brighter than the face right below it), with the typical overhead angle.

My lights aren't super powerful; they are 1x1 Dracast bicolor panels that were about $280 USD on sale, but even with those I can get decent exposure with them backed off a bit.

Don't shoot in homes too often so yes, cramped quarters are what they are. Mostly stuff I do is in a corporate/office setting.

Closer the better for sure in terms of softness, but even with a softbox you start to get the obvious hot spots once too close (forehead noticeably brighter than the face right below it),
With a proper softbox you don't get those hot spots. Like I said those D-Fuse are too shallow. I get it for corporate jobs that required quick portable setup, you just do whatever is needed and no more. I've found even panel lights with the plastic diffuser is often good enough. Here's a shot with just the plastic panel diffuser not bad compared to a softbox.

Sometimes its all a compromise. Yes the physics are the larger and closer the softer. But it all has to be reasonable. I cant even imagine a subject facing key 24 inches in front of a face.

Keep in mind light rays do not bend, period. So when we talk about soft boxes "wrapping around the face" that is a function of the size and diffusion. We can never bend a light ray, we can only reflect it.

PS I deleted a couple lines from my first post because they were misleading.

Kind Regards,

Steve

Your comments are exactly what I want to hear.

I do have one Chimera soft box for the LitePanels 1x1. I also have the barndoor frames and diffusion panels. Should I acquire another Chimera softbox so that I have one for each 1x1? The Chimeras require some additional time to set up, so I will plan ahead. I do set up my lights ~ 4 to 6 feet from the subject.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/767071-REG/Chimera_1650_LED_Lightbank.html

I also have a 4 ft diameter, collapsealbe diffuser and arm, but I haven't purchased a C-stand, yet. :-)

I was wondering how to eliminate the droopy eye/dropped head shadows. Thank you! I will adjust the height of my lights accordingly.

i will definitely shoot into a deeper room instead of across the width, as suggested.

I do have a Sennheiser MD46 dynamic mic. Is that comparable to the Shure SM58? Should I mount it overhead on the boom in place of the MKH416 or on a low stand below the bottom of the frame?

I am self taught, so these little technique suggestions are golden to me.

This is as good as I can get it using the vectorscopes...

A Paul Story 24P CC on Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/390189987)

A teeny bit too cool for me, but like Josh said, at certain point it comes down to personal taste. I'd also be tempted to drop the black point (Lift) or shadows a bit; the CC made noise (pixelation) on the background more conspicuous and darkening it would help to mask that. Not too much though as it will accentuate the blemishes on his skin.

Had a crack at treating those shiny patches on his head in Resolve using a blurred HSL key, but it always left a hot spot at the core that looked like he had some rather nasty ulcers. That said, the highlights were clamped to 100 IRE in the Vimeo download (so presumably the FCP X export also), leaving no scope for pull-down of any usable data in the 'super-white' domain. Resolve preserves super-white and super-black data on import so it can be brought into range and manipulated on the timeline; and gives the option to retain the super-whites/blacks when exporting at 'video' ('broadcast safe') levels. Maybe I could get a better result with the original footage, but maybe not.

Best I could do in this case do was to apply a 'soft clip' to the highlights, but the improvement is barely noticeable.

Original:
http://i.imgur.com/ciOY1dg.png (https://imgur.com/ciOY1dg)

Corrected:
http://i.imgur.com/NLrJ92s.png (https://imgur.com/NLrJ92s)

Too dark ?

Your comments are exactly what I want to hear.

I was wondering how to eliminate the droopy eye/dropped head shadows. Thank you! I will adjust the height of my lights accordingly.
This is a combination of an older subject, the height, size, distance and diffusion of your key. Each interview will have its own challenges, sometimes you have to accept there will be limitations.

I do have a Sennheiser MD46 dynamic mic. Is that comparable to the Shure SM58? Should I mount it overhead on the boom in place of the MKH416 or on a low stand below the bottom of the frame?

The MD46 sounds a little different but, yes, is comparable to the SM58 for this purpose and would work fine. (I replaced all my old SM58s with Sennheiser E835s and an MD46, which have the same capsule and similar sound, a few years ago and have been very pleased.) I think the intent of the earlier suggestion was to use it as a second mic for the interviewer, not to use it on a boom for the main subject - cardioid dynamics are not sensitive or directional enough for that purpose. The best bet for the boom mic would be a condenser hypercardioid like the Audio-Technica AT4053b, Audix SCX1-HC or similar. Short shotguns aren't generally well liked for indoor booming because they can create weird comb filtering effects with reflected sound from the environment. The only one that's sometimes considered suitable for this is the Sanken CS-3E (which I also have - great mic), but it's very expensive relative to the rest of your setup.

And the MD46 can double as a great bludgeon if you have to travel through any rough neighborhoods on the way to or from the gig. :-)

- Greg

YES! what Greg said above.

"And the MD46 can double as a great bludgeon if you have to travel through any rough neighborhoods on the way to or from the gig. :-)"

I would bet my money a SM58 might be more likely to still work after doing its job as a weapon. But who knows, it might all come down to proper proximity ;-)

Steve

Received my DataColor Spyder X Pro today.

Calibrated my monitor... on the blue side.

Much better now!


Calibrated my laptop, also.

Interesting that it was set approximately the same.

since no one else seems to have mentioned it - I would have had the talent slightly off centre to give him more room where he's looking and perhaps throwing some pattern on the back wall with a cookie.

Also you don't need to hear your voice, just the answer & perhaps a lower 3rd explaining who is is & who he's talking about

apart from that - great!