Wedding Ceremony Audio

Philip Howells · September 14th, 2009, 02:04 AM

That's disgraceful behaviour! I've had registrars purposely stand in front of cameras but that's extreme.

Taky Cheung · September 14th, 2009, 02:08 AM

The worst one I have worked with was, they won't allow any camera or camcorder goes inside. We all have to shoot from the last row of seat through the glass. Then their people will purposely stand next to your camera to chat.

They said the altar is a santaury and so no camera or camcorders can be allowed inside while the ceremony is on-going. However, all the rules will be relaxed if the wedding couple will pay for the church video service video taping in the balcony. Then you can walk inside to take video during the service.

Philip Howells · September 22nd, 2009, 08:27 AM

Just to go back to the question of pacemakers and radio mics, I've just got a new portable phone and has a section devoted to implanted medical devices which would cover radio mics and pacemakers. It echoes the caution in my initial piece.

Good luck

Paul R Johnson · September 22nd, 2009, 12:07 PM

On the subject of pacemakers - this information may be interesting reading.

Bearing in mind that the maximum output power of a GSM mobile is 2W, and comparing it to the maximum licensed output of a UHF transmitter pack at 50mW does indicate radio mics are not going to cause the same problem. I cannot however, find any testing carried out with radio microphones. To use the mobile phone data is not satisfactory - even though they work in similar bands. It is worth noting that if moving the cell phone away 15cm is deemed acceptable, then even 50mW could indeed have a field strength worth thinking about?

The medical data relating to mobiles and the response on pacemakers is reproduced here.

Cellular phones
Mobile or cellular phones may interact with PM function by inhibiting the pacing output, asynchronous pacing and ventricular triggering [18,19]. When the antenna is located near the pulse generator header, interaction may occur very easily. Hayes DL et al [20] published a landmark article which was a clinical, multicenter study comparing the effects and interaction of different cellular phones with PM. A total of 980 patients were included into the study. The incidence of all types of interference was 20%. Ventricular tracking of signals sensed on the atrial channel, noise reversion and inhibition of ventricular output were the most commonly observed types of interference. The incidence of overall clinical significant interference was 6.6 %. There was no clinically significant interference when the phone was placed in the normal position over the ear. Interference that was definitely clinically significant occurred in only 1.7 % of tests and only when the phone was held over the pacemaker. Interference was more common in dual chamber systems (25.3 %) than in single chamber systems (6.8 %) and in digital telephones (24%) compared to analog telephones (3 %). Patients who are PM dependent should use an analog type cellular phone system. Carrying the phone on the same side of the body as the implanted PM may cause interference. When using the phone, it should be held at least 15 cm away from the PM and on the opposite ear.

Taky Cheung · September 26th, 2009, 01:54 AM

I also witness another event in the same location. the photograher got yelled at after he rush in to take some photos right after the officiant introduce the newly wedded. The same church

Jason Robinson · September 26th, 2009, 11:41 PM

I have an almost identical setup to Don (same model UHF system even) and that is how I run it. One cam gets discrete channels for hte wireless (1 mic on groom 1 mic on pastor). Cam 2 gets shotgun. Cam three has no mic in so it is ambient. And I occasionally am able to run sound board feed to my MiniDisc recorder.

Dana Salsbury · September 29th, 2009, 11:09 PM

I'm also a minister and officiate often as well. Once a B&G told me they had the PA covered, and when I showed up it was a pink "Barbie and the Rockers" amplifier on a chair!!!

Anyway, we use three cams. Both groom and officiant are mic'd with Zoom H2 recorders, and my wife and I communicate w/ each other using wireless lapels. We mic the PA with a third Zoom on a stand, as Don once recommended to me.

I have a 2 channel Audio Technica wireless, and am considering starting to use it on the officiant instead of a Zoom. I'm just really nervous about interference. On the flip side I'm tired of wrongly estimating how loud the officiant will be and not being able to monitor him.

September 29th, 2009, 11:09 PM	#22
Dana Salsbury Major Player Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 859	I'm also a minister and officiate often as well. Once a B&G told me they had the PA covered, and when I showed up it was a pink "Barbie and the Rockers" amplifier on a chair!!! Anyway, we use three cams. Both groom and officiant are mic'd with Zoom H2 recorders, and my wife and I communicate w/ each other using wireless lapels. We mic the PA with a third Zoom on a stand, as Don once recommended to me. I have a 2 channel Audio Technica wireless, and am considering starting to use it on the officiant instead of a Zoom. I'm just really nervous about interference. On the flip side I'm tired of wrongly estimating how loud the officiant will be and not being able to monitor him. __________________ www.LegacyHDV.com Weddings \| Corporate \| HMC150s \| FCPX \| Encore \| Lion

September 14th, 2009, 02:04 AM	#16
Philip Howells Trustee Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Manchester UK Posts: 1,212	That's disgraceful behaviour! I've had registrars purposely stand in front of cameras but that's extreme.

September 14th, 2009, 02:08 AM	#17
Taky Cheung Inner Circle Join Date: May 2007 Location: Los Angeles, USA Posts: 2,114	The worst one I have worked with was, they won't allow any camera or camcorder goes inside. We all have to shoot from the last row of seat through the glass. Then their people will purposely stand next to your camera to chat. They said the altar is a santaury and so no camera or camcorders can be allowed inside while the ceremony is on-going. However, all the rules will be relaxed if the wedding couple will pay for the church video service video taping in the balcony. Then you can walk inside to take video during the service.

September 22nd, 2009, 08:27 AM	#18
Philip Howells Trustee Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Manchester UK Posts: 1,212	Just to go back to the question of pacemakers and radio mics, I've just got a new portable phone and has a section devoted to implanted medical devices which would cover radio mics and pacemakers. It echoes the caution in my initial piece. Good luck

September 22nd, 2009, 12:07 PM	#19
Paul R Johnson Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Lowestoft - UK Posts: 4,045	On the subject of pacemakers - this information may be interesting reading. Bearing in mind that the maximum output power of a GSM mobile is 2W, and comparing it to the maximum licensed output of a UHF transmitter pack at 50mW does indicate radio mics are not going to cause the same problem. I cannot however, find any testing carried out with radio microphones. To use the mobile phone data is not satisfactory - even though they work in similar bands. It is worth noting that if moving the cell phone away 15cm is deemed acceptable, then even 50mW could indeed have a field strength worth thinking about? The medical data relating to mobiles and the response on pacemakers is reproduced here. Cellular phones Mobile or cellular phones may interact with PM function by inhibiting the pacing output, asynchronous pacing and ventricular triggering [18,19]. When the antenna is located near the pulse generator header, interaction may occur very easily. Hayes DL et al [20] published a landmark article which was a clinical, multicenter study comparing the effects and interaction of different cellular phones with PM. A total of 980 patients were included into the study. The incidence of all types of interference was 20%. Ventricular tracking of signals sensed on the atrial channel, noise reversion and inhibition of ventricular output were the most commonly observed types of interference. The incidence of overall clinical significant interference was 6.6 %. There was no clinically significant interference when the phone was placed in the normal position over the ear. Interference that was definitely clinically significant occurred in only 1.7 % of tests and only when the phone was held over the pacemaker. Interference was more common in dual chamber systems (25.3 %) than in single chamber systems (6.8 %) and in digital telephones (24%) compared to analog telephones (3 %). Patients who are PM dependent should use an analog type cellular phone system. Carrying the phone on the same side of the body as the implanted PM may cause interference. When using the phone, it should be held at least 15 cm away from the PM and on the opposite ear.

September 26th, 2009, 01:54 AM	#20
Taky Cheung Inner Circle Join Date: May 2007 Location: Los Angeles, USA Posts: 2,114	I also witness another event in the same location. the photograher got yelled at after he rush in to take some photos right after the officiant introduce the newly wedded. The same church

September 26th, 2009, 11:41 PM	#21
Jason Robinson Trustee Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boise, Idaho Posts: 1,997	I have an almost identical setup to Don (same model UHF system even) and that is how I run it. One cam gets discrete channels for hte wireless (1 mic on groom 1 mic on pastor). Cam 2 gets shotgun. Cam three has no mic in so it is ambient. And I occasionally am able to run sound board feed to my MiniDisc recorder.