Production Sound Recording Course Discount

If you're interested in saving a little on my Production Sound Recording Course, I'm happy to let you know that we have a discount code for $20 off for the holidays. Simply use coupon code SOUNDHOLIDAY2015 at checkout. https://youtu.be/047jFy1RCwA

Come have a look over at school.learnlightandsound.com.

Video Editing Apps: Which Should I Use?

Short answer: Try a few for a month each and go with the one that works best for you. Power Director was my first consumer level editing app. You could actually sync audio to video in the app but it was manual. And it crashed quite often (this was a 32 bit app back in the day).

Then I upgraded to one of the lesser versions of Sony Vegas. Not bad, but also still 32 bit. Not quite as crashy but not exactly stable. crashes were more common when the timeline was longer than a couple of minutes. No way to live if you really want to produce content.

When I first started editing video a little more seriously, I had a look at Premiere Pro (then version 5.5) and Final Cut Pro X. At that point, I really liked how fast and responsive FCPX was but it crashed. A lot. About every 5 minutes. I don't know why and maybe it was just my particular computer at the time, but that wasn't going to work for me. So I settled on Premiere Pro, starting with CS 5.5 and kept with it up through CC 2014. Premiere keeps getting better and better. But it is sort of like Photoshop in that it is still using the same basic approach as NLEs have used for a long time. The timeline is like a table and you lay out your clips on the table. If you make an edit where you decide to pull a clip from earlier in the sequence and then want to insert it farther to the right, you have to move everything around. Or at least I never learned a better, more efficient way to do it. It might just be me.

Then I decided to give Final Cut Pro X (10.1.something) another try. They definitely fixed the instability issues I experienced on my first try. But this time, FCPX made me angry. Well, not really angry, it just didn't make sense. But I forced myself to stick with it for a full month through the trial period.

And eventually, it all clicked and made sense and saved me a lot of time when I needed to pull a clip or add a new clip from the middle of the timeline. The magnetic timeline just shifted everything over perfectly. And that included all the secondary footage and titles and everything. Rad!

The metadata and search features were nice though I believe a lot of this has been added to Premiere since I moved to FCPX. The library structure, while a little maddening at first because Apple uses different names for things (e.g., project = timeline or sequence), is very useful. I can have a library of related videos broken down into separate events. So my YouTube series on a particular topic, can all live in a single library which makes it easy to re-use clips between episodes. I always found that more difficult in Premiere, having to import an additional project or just go find the clip out on the hard drive.

Audio workflow: No, FCPX doesn't round trip audio to Audition like Premiere with a simple right click. But for short pieces like I typically cut (usually no more than 10 minutes in length, often less), I actually post-process the audio in Audition first, then bring it all into FCPX and sync to the video and then cut. So my audio post is already done. This works fine for simple pieces where you're not doing any sophisticated sound design. This inverted process works nicely for most of the corporate pieces I do.

Same goes for color grading. I pull all the raw footage into Resolve first, color it, export, then bring it into FCPX for editing. Am I crazy for doing this? It is completely backwards from traditional post workflows. I think it works fine for short pieces. But I totally see why they do it the inverse way for longer pieces. No way do you want to do all the post work on every single clip when you will eventually only use 3% of the footage.

So for now, I've landed on FCPX as my editing app of choice. But now there are more options than ever.

DaVinci Resolve 12. I cut one of my recent YouTube pieces in Resolve 12. Wow. They've come a long way even in the last 2 releases. I think that I would consider Resolve 12 a genuine candidate and for those on a tight budget, a very good candidate. The free version seemed to have everything I needed to get the job done. I was a little clumsy with it, simply because it was my first edit, but it looks really great. The only thing is that you have to have a full-fledged computer with a discrete graphics card. So this isn't going to work on your MacBook Air or a similarly spec'd PC. In many ways, Resolve 12 felt very much like Premiere to me.

There are other options of course, some of them free. HitFilm 3 Express is available for free. I simply haven't had time to dive in and assess it. There's also Lightworks. Avid Media Composer is still in wide use in the feature film and TV markets. So many options create an almost dizzying landscape for the budding video editor.

But my take is that you just have to find what works for you. Most of them have a trial period. I'd suggest you download them and give each of them a month trial to see how they fit your style.

Then make a decision and learn the ins and outs. Don't waste time endlessly trying every new version of every new NLE. I keep up on what comes in the new versions but have decided to switch no more than every 2 years or so. That's why I'm staying with FCPX for now.

Raya 7 Bulb Softbox 2 Light Kit

If you need an affordable kit for talking head style video, B&H has a great deal on this Raya 7 Bulb Softbox 2 Light Kit.

I find that I like to have 2 soft lights for most of my interview setups, one as a key, the second as a kicker. Then I'll often pull in a third hard light for the background.

Or if filming both the interviewer and interviewee, one soft light for each as a key which then double as the kicker.

You should be able to get all the light you'd need out of these.

Dracast 500 LED Panel Special Pricing

B&H Photo has special pricing on Dracast's 500 bi-color LED Panels toady. If you're in the market, these are worth considering with their 95 CRI spec (I haven't tested that but other reviewers are saying that the color is quite good). This model comes with a v-mount for Sony v-mount batteries and it can be powered via AC as well.

They look to have a pretty thoughtful design with the yoke that can be mounted vertically or horizontally to enable a good range of motion for aiming the head. Cooling is passive so no noisy fans.

It seems to me that LEDs are finally here with decent amounts of output and color that will blend decently with other sources. I have to imagine that in not too many years  we'll remember back to the days when a decent LED lighting instrument ran at least $1000 USD...

Sennheiser AVX Dynamic Range and Outdoor Distance Tests

https://youtu.be/uUSd_ulXdno Sennheiser recently introduced their new digital wireless system called the Sennheiser AVX. There are various kits available and in this episode I used the kit with the transmitter, receiver, and MKE2 lavalier microphone (their higher-end pro lavalier microphone).

We did a few tests to see how well the AVX does in terms of outdoor distance (keeping its signal without dropping out), and the dynamic range feature Sennheiser touts as preventing clipping and distortion when the sound gets much louder.

The outdoor distance test was as expected: Solid up to 50 meters, and my first dropout occurred at around 75 meters. You need to pretty much be in line-of-sight to get a solid signal at 50 meters. I never shoot this way, but it is good to know the limits of one's tools.

The dynamic range feature was way more impressive than I expected. It really works and sounds good! I feared it might be like Automatic Gain Control like they include in many of the DSLRs and that AGC feature is awful in those cameras. It stupidly pushes the gain up through the roof during silent sequences and that just makes an unbearably noisy mess of the audio. But on the AVX, it sounds very transparent and clean. I really like it!

Final review should be here later this week. Let me know if there are other things you'd like me to test before I have to send it back to my friends at B&H Photo.

Interview with Location Sound Recordist Scott Vanderbilt

If you've ever wondered what its like to be a location sound recordist/mixer for film, here's an opportunity to get the perspective of Scott Vanderbilt. He records sound for feature and short films, commercials, and corporate pieces. He's based in Los Angeles and has some good insights for those trying to improve their sound recordings for film.

Sound for Video Course Released!

After many long weeks of work, sweat, and a few tears, my online course on recording sound for video and film is ready and available!

I wanted to do something that would work for a subject as in-depth as recording sound for video. Just posting a bunch of videos wasn't going to cut it because there are plenty of places to get stuck while learning the fundamentals. So with the course, we will also hold weekly online help sessions where you can ask any question related to recording sound for video and we'll discuss options for solving those problems.

The pricing, a one time fee, is normally $79 but for those of you who have subscribed to my YouTube channel and frequented my blog, you can get the course for $49 through the end of September 2015. That's as a token of thanks for all of your support, comments, questions, and encouragement!

Can't wait to meet up with you on the weekly help sessions!

Recording Sound to a DSLR Camera vs Audio Recorder

How can you get the best quality sound for your videos? There are a lot of factors, and using an external microphone is one of the big factors. But another question that comes up quite often is, will a dedicated audio recorder improve my sound quality? I think it will in 95% of cases. Here’s a sample comparing the quality you get with a professional level lavalier microphone, the Countryman B6, recorded into a simple Zoom H1 audio recorder and recorded into a typical DSLR camera, the Nikon D750.

Now there are still cases where recording sound with your camera may be good enough. But if you want the best audio quality you can get, even a little $99 USD audio recorder is better than a $2000 DSLR camera.

Random Thoughts on Buying Gear for Film and Video

Here are some random thoughts I wrote down some time ago. Maybe they'll help you and maybe they wont. But here's a sample of my thought process:

Notes first written sometime back in 2014, before I had my Panasonic GH4 and Shogun recorder and my iMac 5k:

What should I buy next for my filmmaking kit? Often I find myself distracted by all the cool gear available on the market. This is a problem in two ways: 1) I lose precious creative filmmaking time by endlessly researching gear and 2) I sometimes get my priorities mixed up and end up with the wrong gear, at least it is wrong from the standpoint that it doesn't help me solve my most pressing filmmaking issues.

Here are a few ideas that I've attempted to use to work through this dilemma…

First, I list out the problems that I'm trying to solve for my current or upcoming project. I don’t worry about priority yet, just all the issues that I need to or would like to solve. I avoid listing gear, just list the problems I need to solve.

- No 4:2:2 4K record capability

- Lack of stabilized movement

- Mediocre audio quality with indoor dialogue in particular, but also outdoor

- Difficulty getting colors right when color correcting/grading

- Framing issues

- Lack of energy in recordings

Next, work through the list and choose the one that will make the most difference or, in some cases, simply must be done first because of client needs.

In this case, I chose color—I seem to really struggle getting consistent color and can never seem to really tell what my video is going to look like because I don’t trust my two monitors…

Next, think it through, what is the problem if you think it through in greater detail?

I don’t trust that either of my monitors closely represent the standard color space, gamma, etc. where my videos and films will be viewed. When I see my finished videos on other peoples’ monitors or projectors or TVs, they look different than on my PC monitor. Where will they be viewed? Mostly on office computers and projectors and TVs. But mostly on PCs. However, it is most critical that they look their best on the office projectors and TVs (where they will be viewed by larger groups).

Can this be solved with my current gear?

Maybe, but I’m not sure. I have calibrated my Dell Ultrasharp 2413 with an X-Rite i1 Display Pro and that seems to help, but it often seems too saturated and doesn’t at all match my cheapo HP monitor. Calibrating in this way is not very effective, I learn, because we're using an 8 bit color workflow via a computer video card. If colors are way off, there isn't much space to move around to compensate. It will never be amazingly accurate.

What are the potential solutions?

- Invest in a color workflow that works via a video I/O device (different than a computer video card) which supports 3D LUTs and ideally, 10-bit color.

- Buy a modest reference monitor

Added notes June 2015:

I opted not to solve this problem for now. I'm now working mainly on an iMac 5k. It is NOT a reference monitor, I know that. Colorists would scoff and some might even totally discount everything I have to say from this point forward. But let me give some context.

My jobs don't pay all that much. There is absolutely, positively no budget for a colorist in 99.9% of my jobs. My clients don't expect exceptional color (sadly). So they get what they pay for - a decent quality internal video that has not been edited or graded on a reference monitor and may look decent but may not look great.

For the record, I don't just go all cavalier. I do use an

X-Rite i1Display Pro colorimeter

to at least get me into the parking lot of the right ballpark. But I am fully aware that calibrating through a computer video card that supports 8 bit is problematic and not anywhere close to reference grade.

I will keep at this until at some point I can charge more and can afford a reference monitor. Perhaps I can start serving a higher tier client base. I'm working on it. But this is a decent start and working with a "color calibrated" iMac has produced content good enough for low-end corporate gigs.

So that's the context. And that's a problem that I opted not to solve for now.

Another thought that I don't think occurs to a lot of people. Some gear is a better investment than other gear.

I think that most sound gear, microphones in particular, are much better investments than camera bodies. Hear me out on this, it isn't quite as absurd as it first sounds.

Of course you need at least one decent camera to produce a film or video. But cameras become obsolete very quickly these days. I counted the cameras I've had over the last 9 years and I believe I've had 7. That's almost a new camera yearly. At this rate, I barely have time to get well acquainted with my camera before it is upgraded. Some DPs are so awesome that they can pull that off and adapt to a new camera really quickly. But I think many of us indy guys that don't shoot all day long every day could benefit from a little more practice with our cameras. A year may be enough time for some, maybe not for others. I personally could probably benefit from more practice with my cameras.

Now consider microphones. How many of us own a $2,000 microphone? Not many is my guess. I certainly don't and I'm a self-professed sound enthusiast.

Back to cameras. How many of us own a $2000+ camera? I do and probably a lot more of us than those that own a $2000 mic.

Schoepps Collette Series MK41 Supercardioid Microphone Set

Now try an exercise: Choose a movie and watch one scene from the movie two different ways. On the first viewing, don't watch the visuals, just listen to the sound. Second time, just watch the visuals and turn the sound off.

Which had more emotional impact? Which was easier to follow?

I'm betting that in most cases, it is easier to follow and there is more emotional impact from the audio only experience. That's not always true and of course we all want stunning visuals and awesome sound. But if you have to cut back your budget a little on one to invest in the other, it might make sense for most of us who have skimped on audio gear to re-allocate our budgets a little and use more for sound and a little less for cameras. Don't get angry. Just think about it. It may not apply in your case but for most of us, I bet it is a valid point worth considering.

To be clear, I'm not saying you should spend thousands on audio gear and just work with a $500 USD camera with a kit lens. But on the other hand, I am suggesting that might help get you out of a creative slump in you're in one.

Of course lenses are also probably a better investment than camera bodies in most cases. So there's that to consider.

Zoom H6 Audio Field Recorder

But I think my next big, multi-thousand dollar investment is going to be either a mic or a good solid field recorder. And to make a step toward that goal, in the next few weeks we're going to have a look at the difference between $200 - $400 field recorders and a Sound Devices audio interface that costs $900 (and only has two mic inputs). To do this, I'm borrowing a Zoom H6 and Sound Devices USBPre 2 to compare with my trusty Tascam DR-60DmkII. I opted for the USBPre 2 because it is really a proxy for a Sound Devices 700 series field recorder that many pros use. It has the same preamps and analog to digital converters. So it should give us a good idea of what a $3300 Sound Devices field recorder or mixer would do for us.

Now before you cry, "But that's not a fair comparison!" I totally get that. I'm not trying to compare, really, just answer the question, "What practical benefits do you get when you use a pro level field recorder?" I'm guessing that the difference in audio quality is not worlds better. Probably a little better, but not night-and-day different. I bet reliability and routing options and flexibility and powering options and durability are better on the pro units. But we'll see.

Thanks for enduring my rambling thoughts. I'm not sure whether this has helped anyone aside from me so you're a good sport for reading through if you've made it this far!

Sony a5100 Special Pricing

A few months back we did a review of the video features on the Sony a5100 mirrorless camera which impressed me quite a bit. I bought one for my wife, who was looking for a camera nearly as small as her point-and-shoot from 8 years ago, but a little quicker at actually capturing photos. Yes, she has a smartphone and yes she uses that plenty, but wanted a "real" camera that would take nicer photos when there wasn't a lot of light and that could zoom optically. https://youtu.be/tq2AkLc_hGI

While this camera doesn't have as many physical buttons as higher-end models, and the default settings are definitely aimed at beginners, Sony was wise enough to allow shooters to turn off all those annoying auto/beginner features and take total control. And the HD video this camera captures is quite impressive with its XAVC S codec (a higher bit-rate flavor or H.264 encoding) and its large APS-C sized sensor. The only downside I really find is that it is limited to about 25 minutes of continuous shooting. That's not a problem for those of us that are doing short pieces, but probably not the best choice for someone doing long-form video like lectures or shows where you want to capture the whole hour or two on one camera.

And the best part? This camera won't break the bank. Right now, it looks like they've reduced to the price so that the camera body alone is less than $350 USD. Even with the 16-50mm kit lens, which is a solid beginner lens, the package still comes in at just under $500 USD. I'm not sure how long this lasts but I'd say that if you're looking for a camera for shooting talking head, interview, or dramatic style film, this is a very solid starting point. Same for those looking for a B (second) camera.