New to FX7

[Dave Eaton]

Originally Posted by Leslie Wand

mount around $50au / mic around $145us.

Sorry, I was referring to where I am, U.S. I can find the Audio Technica ATR55 for $50 or so, and the Rode SM3 is also about $50. The SM3 will probably help with the camera noise but so does the Sima/Bescor flash bracket off to the left -- may have to test it on the right, too.

I just purchased a Zoom H4 and will be using the ATR55 in Normal off off-camera via the H4. May be adding a Azden SGM-1X to the mix.

[Adam Gold]

A side bracket and a shock mount are two different things and have different purposes. While the bracket will get the mic off the cam and may reduce tape whine, it'll actually increase noise transmitted to the cam if you touch even a button or zoom rocker. The shock mount isolates from noise physically transmitted through the solid parts of the cam.

[Dave Eaton]

Originally Posted by Adam Gold

A side bracket and a shock mount are two different things and have different purposes. While the bracket will get the mic off the cam and may reduce tape whine, it'll actually increase noise transmitted to the cam if you touch even a button or zoom rocker. The shock mount isolates from noise physically transmitted through the solid parts of the cam.

It's a dampened bracket...just kidding. Point taken.

[Dave Eaton]

I was surfing around and found all sorts of DIY shock mounts, blimps, poles...

Wire Monkey - Shock Mount

Make a Rubber Band Shock Mount for your Boom Mic for only $3!

Microphone Suspension Mount

DIY Shockmount&Zeppelin Rode NT-4

Blimp and shock mount:

DIY Mic Windscreen (Zeppelin) on the Cheap

Stereo Blimp:

rcrds DIY MS-stereo microphone blimp

Paint Roller Blimp:

Microphone Blimp

Dual Zeppelins, no waiting:

DIY Shock-Mounts w/Zeppelins for Rode NT1-A Mics

[Dave Eaton]

Just found some time to experiment with the Sony HDR-FX7 and Zoom H4. The combo is working well in my tests; FX7 connected to the H4 (tried both line and headphone output), FX7 not connected to the H4 and sync'd in post by aligning a hand clap. The ATR55 actually works well, I have a SGM-1X on the way but the ATR55 will still be used as well.

The thing I find odd is that despite the excellent sound I heard in the headphones the audio waveforms in the H4 files are considerably lower (almost flat-lined) than the audio waveforms in the FX7 audio version of the same files -- H4 connected to the FX7 or not.

Saw someone "fix" this in an interesting H4 for podcast use Vimeo video IHR TV #3 - Podcast Audio Production on Vimeo using the free app Levelator (Mac, Windows, Linux) The Levelator from The Conversations Network. An associate said they get "fat and rich" audio waveforms from their H4 which is telling me I'm not doing something right.

On the H4 I have the Mic and Inputs 1&2 set to M and AGC and Compressor off with Input Level max'd at 127. Maybe they're using compressor and AGC, I'm not an audio guy but thought using those type of settings was a no-no.

While I can tweak the audio in post I'd really prefer to have things set properly to get the best audio files I can from this setup. Any advice, tips or helpful links would be appreciated. Thanks!

[Seth Bloombaum]

Originally Posted by Dave Eaton

...The thing I find odd is that despite the excellent sound I heard in the headphones the audio waveforms in the H4 files are considerably lower (almost flat-lined) than the audio waveforms in the FX7 audio version of the same files -- H4 connected to the FX7 or not.

Saw someone "fix" this in an interesting H4 for podcast ... using the free app Levelator...

On the H4 I have the Mic and Inputs 1&2 set to M and AGC and Compressor off with Input Level max'd at 127. Maybe they're using compressor and AGC, I'm not an audio guy but thought using those type of settings was a no-no.

I've owned the H4 for a couple years now, and I like it.

The audio recording level controls are rather minimalist. As you've mentioned: L-M-H for the external inputs, and L-M-H for the internal mics; that's it.

There is also a level control in the input menu. After reading that it doesn't really trim what's coming into the preamp, I've not touched it in 2 years.

So, I set my sensitivity to M for music and H for voice and don't worry too much about the needed post work, 'cause I always post and it doesn't take much time. I use Ozone (PC) as a mastering tool, it has a nice volume maximizer, among other features. I'd typically just touch a music recording, hit a voice/narrative recording a bit harder. Lots of detailed tweaking can be done with a tool like this.

That's what you're going to get with a $300 recorder. Still a great value for pretty good sound. Hmm... I just realized that Ozone costs almost as much as the recorder.

My advice: Test with mic sensitivity set on H, keep compressor and agc off, consider limiter on.

The Levelator - I hadn't heard of this before, but I recognize at least one of the names in the credits - I've seen some of Doug Kaye's other work related to doing near-studio-quality interviews over Skype. His techniques work. I'd be inclined to believe that Levelator is a decent one-step audio processing bundle for podcasts, as claimed. Whether it's gonna' be good for audio-for-video... well, as someone who's been working professionally in A for V for, um, decades I wouldn't trust any automagic processor. I like my Ozone just fine, thank you very much.

But if podcast-quality appeals to you and a one-step tools appeals to your level of expertise and motivation give it a try and see if the results satisfy.

[Dave Eaton]

Originally Posted by Seth Bloombaum

My advice: Test with mic sensitivity set on H, keep compressor and agc off, consider limiter on.

Thanks, Seth, I was avoiding H for some reason. Ran a few more tests and think part of the problem is that the ATR55 I have isn't very hot, the internal mics fair much better. I use Final Cut Studio and have SoundTrack Pro so I'm set for audio editing. In my simple tests Levelator worked pretty well for speech. Since 99% of what I'll be recording is speech so I should be okay using it or normalizing, etc., in SoundTrack. I was just trying to figure out how others are getting fatter waveforms.

I was rather pleased at how well the FX7 worked when connected to the H4. No low volume problems (AGC off) and backup audio. I like it!

[John Gerard]

Hi,

I am new to this forum so I hope this is the right place to post. I am still having trouble posting messages.

I just got the FX7 which I like a lot. I have a couple of questions about HD. I have done a lot of standard Def recording but no HD. In the 1080i specs is the video recorded in Widescreen (16:9) or (4:3)? Is there anyway to tell the camera which format to record in or is this done in Premiere? I know that under SD recording I can specify 16:9 or 4:3. I am using Premiere Pro CS3 and the Intensity Pro card. Is there anything in particular I need to do to get it to capture from the HDMI port through the capture card? I told the Intensity sotware to use the HDMI port on the capture card. Maybe the FX7 is not supported?

Thanks,

John Gerard

[Martyn Hull]

Originally Posted by John Gerard

Hi,

I am new to this forum so I hope this is the right place to post. I am still having trouble posting messages.

I just got the FX7 which I like a lot. I have a couple of questions about HD. I have done a lot of standard Def recording but no HD. In the 1080i specs is the video recorded in Widescreen (16:9) or (4:3)? Is there anyway to tell the camera which format to record in or is this done in Premiere? I know that under SD recording I can specify 16:9 or 4:3. I am using Premiere Pro CS3 and the Intensity Pro card. Is there anything in particular I need to do to get it to capture from the HDMI port through the capture card? I told the Intensity sotware to use the HDMI port on the capture card. Maybe the FX7 is not supported?

Thanks,

John Gerard

In hd mode it will always be 16:9 .i dont use Premier but take it your pc does not have a firewire[hdmi]slot so you use the capture card.The FX- is no different to any hdv cam regarding capture so it is not that your cam is not supported.

[Mike Burgess]

I have used my friends FX7 and with firewire, I have been able to download his tapes into my computer. I then used Pinnacle 12 to edit and produce an SD DVD. The next time I have his camcorder, I will be using Nero9 to edit and produce an HD DVD (Actually an AVCHD DVD).

Mike

[Adam Gold]

Originally Posted by John Gerard

I am using Premiere Pro CS3 and the Intensity Pro card. Is there anything in particular I need to do to get it to capture from the HDMI port through the capture card? I told the Intensity sotware to use the HDMI port on the capture card. Maybe the FX7 is not supported?

Don't capture via HDMI. There's no point to it and there's no reason to do so. HDMI does not transmit timecode so you will have a very hard time editing with footage captured this way.

HDMI capture is only for live recording direct to disk, as going straight out of the HDMI port avoids HDV compression. But once your picture is recorded to tape, it's heavily compressed and there is no reason to use the HDMI out except for display to a TV screen.

Just use Firewire. If your PC does not have a FW (i.Link) card, one can be had for $20 or so.

[Lee Berger]

Originally Posted by Adam Gold

Don't capture via HDMI. There's no point to it and there's no reason to do so. HDMI does not transmit timecode so you will have a very hard time editing with footage captured this way..

I haven't tried this, however at Blackmagic Design's Intensity's website they say you can capture the video and audio via HDMI and use your camcorder or deck's firewire for device control. From their website:

Device Control None. Use FireWire if capturing from HDMI cameras.

Blackmagic Design: Intensity Tech Specs

I've done this using my AJA I/O to capture down-converted analog component output from my V1U via the I/O and controlling the camcorder via Firewire device control. This allowed batch capturing with timecode.

Perhaps someone has tried this with Intensity.

Finally, the rationale for capturing from HDV via HDMI is to transcode to a more robust codec such as uncompressed or ProRes (I don't know if there is an equivalent for Premiere).

[Adam Gold]

Originally Posted by Lee Berger

... the rationale for capturing from HDV via HDMI is to transcode to a more robust codec such as uncompressed or ProRes (I don't know if there is an equivalent for Premiere).

Sure, Cineform, but there's no advantage to doing this via HDMI instead of FW. The signal is the same once it's been compressed to tape.

[Lee Berger]

Originally Posted by Adam Gold

The signal is the same once it's been compressed to tape.

That's correct. You can't improve upon the original signal, but if you transcode to a better codec (ProRes or Cineform) then all of your renders and composting will look better. FCP has the option of rendering in ProRes for HDV or XDCam projects. In that case I agree that there would be no advantage to capturing to another format. Indeed I have edited many native HDV projects on my older dual G-5 and my new Mac Pro.

Also consider that capturing and editing in Native HDV requires more processor power due to HDV's Long GOP file structure. With each edit your computer must calculate a new I frame that did not exist prior to the edit. Cineform and ProRes are intraframe formats (each frame is unique) and therefore don't require as much computational muscle from the host computer.

[Leslie Wand]

Originally Posted by Lee Berger

You can't improve upon the original signal, but if you transcode to a better codec (ProRes or Cineform) then all of your renders and composting will look better.

that is if you're looking to do any heavy duty cc'ing or compositing, otherwise, you'd be hard pressed to see any significant difference editing hdv on the t/l.

leslie