Audio Tips For Wedding Videographers

Presented at the Greater Philadelphia Videographers Association, November 18, 2008.

Ceremony Audio

• You should have a microphone on the groom and the officiant. Don't assume that the officiant will be picked up by the groom's mic. Remember that in some denominations (i.e. Catholic) the officiant will often be at a distance from the groom during a large part of the ceremony.
• Find out where the readings will take place a mic the podium.
• String quartets, piano, vocal soloists, any source of music should have its own microphones. Use stereo if possible. Handheld digital music recorders (Edirol, Zoom, H4, Marantz etc) often have very good stereo mics built in. Just set the recorder up on a stand in front of the musicians.
• The organ can be a problem. It is often difficult to get a mic close enough to the pipes or organ speakers. If you can get close, by all means do so. But if not find a quiet part of the church away from the guests (to minimize crowd noise). Fortunately the organ fills the church with sound. If you can't use a dedicated microphone, one of the other mics will most likely get usable audio. Don't count on getting good organ sound from a mic being used for musicians if they will be performing along with the organ. A closely mic'd singer or trumpet player will overwhelm even a loud organ.
• Using the church audio. Many people hook into the church PA system. This way they have both the officiant and podiums taken care of. While this often works very well, there are drawbacks. The PA system may or may not be accessible, there may not be anyone around who knows how it works, and it is hard to test before the ceremony starts. For these reasons it is often better to mic everything separately. The exception is if there is a dedicated audio person at the church. Some churches are very media savvy and not only have good equipment, but people who know how to use it. Take advantage of this if available.
• Before the ceremony test levels on everything. You will not be able to make adjustments once it starts. It is better to set levels a little too low than too high and have clipping. Make sure that your recorders are on and recording. Lock them so the groom, officiant, reader, musician etc. cannot accidentally turn them off. Use the audio level meters if you have them to confirm recording levels. This is one reason not to use an iRiver, no audio level indicators. This is also where multiple wireless microphones are useful. You can set the levels remotely at the camera. Make sure you have fresh batteries. You can't change them in the middle of the ceremony.
• Make sure that your wireless microphones do not interfere with the church PA. While this doesn't happen as much as it used to, it can still occur.

Reception audio

• Microphone in front of speakers vs direct connection to the DJ
  1. An ideal reception audio setup should use both.
• Advantages of a direct connection.
  1. Clean direct audio, not through speakers.
  2. CD quality Stereo output (sometimes).
• Disadvantages of a direct connection
  1. Possible clipping if the DJ turns the levels up too high (particularly if not monitoring).
  2. No guarantee that music and the mic audio levels will be appropriate or that you will even have both.
  3. DJ might not know how his board works or where the connections are, or he may not permit a connection.
  4. Things can get unplugged or a critical channel can be turned off.
• Advantages of speaker audio
  1. You always get the full sound as heard in the room.
  2. No danger of losing all or part of the feed due to the DJ turning off a channel or unplugging something.
  3. No problem (most of the time) if the DJ won't or can't get you hooked up.
  4. You will be able to pick up crowd noise (applause etc)
• Disadvantages of Speaker audio
  1. It never sounds as good as a direct connection.
  2. You always pick up crowd noise (people talking near the mics).

• Use a direct connection to capture the music, DJ dialog and toasts. Use one or two mics positioned near the speakers for CYA, AND if possible another mic pointed towards the guests for applause etc (an on camera mic can be used here in a pinch)

Equipment

• For DJ hookup
  1. Mixer - Useful for connecting various cables, wireless transmitter, recorder, and headphones in one box.
  2. Cables. Make sure that you have cables that terminate on one end with phono plugs (2 for stereo) and ¼ inch plugs. Adaptors are good for this. Also XLRs (although most boards will have photo or 1/4 inch).
  3. Direct Box - Very useful for:
     • Isolating the DJ board to your equipment. Provides ground lift and attenuators.
     • You can plug a plugin type wireless transmitter into the XLR output. Since the transmitter expects a mic level input, use the attenuator on the Direct Box to convert line level to mic level.
  4. Wireless transmitter to camera. Use a plugin type with a Direct Box, and a standard (wearable) transmitter with antenna without. You have to convert the line level output from the board to mic level. Use a Direct Box, an in-line attenuator, or a mixer.
  5. Recorder. Allows recording of stereo feed from the board (if available). Better quality audio than a wireless mic. The recorder should have level indicators to prevent clipping (avoid iRivers if possible) unless connected through a mixer with level indicators. If you have a 4 track recorder, you can use two tracks for the DJ board output and 2 from microphones.
  6. Headphones. Don't trust meters. Listen for yourself. Use sound isolating phones.
  7. Power strip and extension cord - If you have anything that plugs in bring these. The DJ may be using all the plugs and you might have to run an extension from somewhere else.
• Microphone setup
  1. Can be connected to a wireless mic or to a recorder.
  2. Use a dynamic mic. Condenser mics are often overloaded by the high SPLs found at a typical reception. Even better purchase a drum mic. These are designed to be placed in front of a drum where there are very high sound levels.
  3. Use a cardioid mic. This microphone is somewhat directional but not as much as a shotgun. It will minimize crowd noise . Typical vocalist mics are cardioid.
  4. Place the mics on stands close to the speakers and facing them. Not too close as you might end up getting mostly the lows from the woofers or the highs from the tweeters.
  5. Optionally a third mic can be placed facing the guests to pick up crowd noise.

Tips

• When working with the DJ:
  1. If possible examine the outputs on the board. The Master Out jacks are usually your best bet. It is important that whatever output you use that the audio contains a mix of all channels (vocal and music). If you can't find an output that does have both, but you have a mixer, you may be able to mix vocal and music tracks in the mixer.
  2. Test Everything! Have the DJ play music and test his microphone. Make sure that he also tests any other mics that will be in use (i.e. for the toasts). Have him turn the volume up to the loudest level that he anticipates using. Set your levels so there is no clipping going into your wireless or recorder. In fact set it a bit lower. DJs have a tendency to really crank it up. Make sure that you listen with headphones. Just because the levels are OK, doesn't mean that the audio isn't distorted or noisy.
  3. Periodically check your setup. Check the levels and listen with your headphones. DJs have been known to accidently (or on purpose) turn off the output to your equipment or unplug cables. Also monitor camera audio if you have sound going to that. Use headphones as well as the audio level meters in the camera.
  4. Put fresh batteries into anything that needs them.
  5. If using a digital recorder, be aware of how much space is left to record. Change flash memory cards before you run out.
  6. CYA. Always have a backup source of audio. If you are getting your audio from the DJ board but have a microphone in front of the speakers, you are covered. Camera audio can be used, but the quality depends on where you are in the room and which direction you are facing.
• When Working with a live band
  1. Most bands have someone running a mixer. Use the mixer like the DJ board. Get a Master out if possible. Remember however that the mix is optimized for the speakers, not for recording. Typically it is not optimal for our use. Therefore you should also set up mics if possible. It may not be practical to do anything more than place a couple of microphones on stands near the speakers, but you should have a second source of audio. Since most bands are using electrified instruments, the speakers are the best place to pick up audio. An exception would be if the musicians are using non-amplified acoustic instruments. In a complex situation multi track recording may be necessary for optimal sound. For example you may want a couple of mics on the instruments, a feed from the board for the vocalists and any electric instruments, and another mic on the drums. This is often not practical without a dedicated audio person so keep it simple if you don't have the resources.

Camera presets - updated

Originally published July 14, 2008

In this earlier article, I mentioned trying out Paolo Ciconne's Trucolor preset. I am pleased to say that I have used Trucolor on my XH-A1s for the last three weddings with great success. The colors and flexibility of this preset are amazing.

Success with Soundtrack Pro

Originally published July 9, 2008

About a year ago, I tried using Apple's Soundtrack Pro to do sound design on a wedding that I was editing. Unfortunately when I exported my mix back into Final Cut Pro, I found that the levels were all over the place and not what I had set during the aduio edit. Since then I have done all audio editing inside Final Cut Pro.

I am pleased to say that Apple has fixed these problems. I just completed sound design on a 25 minute highlight video with no problems. I will now be using Soundtrack Pro on a regluar basis.

Notes on using Apple's Color

Originally published July 9, 2008

Color, Apple's color grading program included with Final Cut Studio 2, brings the ability to do professional (i.e. Hollywood level) color grading to video. It isn't the best solution for every editing situation though.

When is Color better than color correcting in Final Cut Pro? If you have to do nothing more than simple levels adjustments or correcting a slight color cast, you are usually better off staying in FCP. But if more extensive color corrections need to be made, or if you are trying to achieve a certain look through grading (a term used for making multiple corrections on a clip), then Color is a good tool to use.

For the event videographer, there is one major limitation. Color doesn't like FCP Multiclips. If you try exporting a sequence containing Multiclips, you might find clips out of place, or even footage that wasn't even included in your sequence in the Color timeline. Sometimes the graded timeline cannot be sent back to FCP. The only workaround that I have found is to substitute clips from the orginal media for the Multiclips. This unfortunately makes grading multiclips, or even clips that originated as multiclips difficult and time consuming.

As a result, I am not using Color at this time. Until Apple solves the multiclip issue, color correcting in Final Cut Pro is the only viable option. I do a lot of multiclip work, and can't afford to take the time to work around this limitation.

Finding editing efficiencies

Originally published Apr 11, 2008 at Bonnie Blink Productions

Looking at the number of weddings that I have this year and the time it will take to edit them, I realized that unless I change the way I edit, there will be a big backlog and some unhappy clients by the end of the season. So here are a few things to do that will help cut the number of editing hours:

1. Capture while doing something else. As I use a tape based workflow, capturing video from tape takes from 5 to 10 hours, depending on how many tapes there are to capture. As I have two computers to work with, I can capture to one while editing on another (savings 5 to 10 hours).
2. Color correction. I can be more efficient by doing basic color correction up front. Then only tweak color to achieve a particular effect. Also getting the white balance right while shooting will cut lots of time out in post.
3. Right now I spend about 20-25 hours working on the short form (Highlights) video. I spend a lot of that time looking for the right footage and the right audio (sound bites etc). If during the first pass, I mark the best stuff, it will be right there to drop into the timeline.
4. DVD authoring. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel. Create some nice templates and stick with them.
5. For the Deluxe Package I used to create an entirely separate long form edit. No more. Now the ceremony, main dances, toasts, cake, bouquet & garter are extras on the DVD. There is no need to make them into a single video when the short form highlights video tells the story.

Now if I can just stick to these ideas, There will be a lot more time spent not editing.

Camera presets, getting the look in camera or in Post

Originally published Apr 4, 2008 at the Bonnie Blink Productions Blog

After reading Paolo Ciccone's article on his TruColor preset for the Canon XH-A1, I began to rethink whether it is better to use a camera preset to obtain a certain look, or to get that look in post. The goal of the TruColor preset is to set the camera's response as close as possible to neutral. To do this he used a calibrated target and monitored the output on a waveform monitor and vectorscope.

I like the idea of not introducing any bias into the image that I am capturing on tape. In photography, I almost always shoot raw, rather than jpeg, because I feel that it is better to be able to preserve as much data as possible, even if it means doing more work in post-production to get the right look. Nothing is "baked in". In wedding video where we are often working under pressure and have little control of lighting, this makes a lot of sense. In Hollywood no expense is spared to get just the right lighting, and they can always reshoot. But they still have colorists who tweak the film in post.

As Final Cut Studio now includes an excellent color grading tool, there isn't any reason to not to create the desired look in post. As long as we shoot with the right white balance, and exposure, we should always be able to get the look that we want, and if we don't like it, we can easily change it.

Is the latest and greatest what we really need?

Originally published Mar 4, 2008

I have been following the forums on Video University regarding the latest high definition camcorders from Sony, The EX1 and the Z7. These are remarkable cameras. They both record to flash memory rather than tape (the Z7 also records on Mini DV tape), and have many compelling features. But they are also expensive. B&H lists both cameras around $6500. With the EX1 you have to invest in some pricey memory cards to even record video which pushes the price up another $1500 - $2000. The Z7 uses (in addition to tape) the less expensive Compact Flash cards found in many DSLRs. But the reliability of these for HD video is unknown.

I am not going that route. We will be using the Canon XH-A1 ($3400 at B&H). The reason is cost effectiveness. While the A1 does not have the low light capability of the Sonys, it is still decent. It doesn't record to memory cards, just tape. If we were doing a high volume wedding business, it might be different. The same with corporate video. It just doesn't pay to spend that much money on equipment whose features we will not use. I want to make a profit in this business.

There is nothing that we can't do with an A1 that we can with a Z7 or EX1. Yes we will have to use more light at receptions, but I have found that even the Sony PD170 whose low light capabilities matches the EX1, needs extra lighting sometimes. The XH-A1 is a capable, configurable HDV camcorder that does everything that we need to create beautiful wedding videos.

White balancing in mixed lighting conditions

Originally published Feb 29, 2008

Getting the right white balance is one of the challenges that we have to deal with when shooting a wedding. Video cameras like film do not compensate the way our eye-brain system does for differences in reddishness or bluishness of light. If we set the camera for daylight and move indoors, we end up with video which is excessively red. The same happens if we have the camera set for tungsten light and we move outdoors. The resulting video is too blue.

Professional video cameras have a variety of ways to set the white balance. We can use a preset (usually either tungsten or daylight), set the balance to a specific color temperature, or we can balance to a white card, letting the camera's electronics calibrate to a known standard. There is also an auto white balance in which case the camera makes an educated guess based on the light coming through the lens.

The problem that is often encountered is that the color temperature of the light that we are shooting in, may vary considerably with a single room. Take a church for example. There is daylight coming through windows, but they are often stained glass, thus coloring that light. There is also incandescent light from lamps inside the church. If we were shooting a movie we would light the interior so there is little variation in color temperature, using whatever Hollywood techniques are required to get it right. If you have ever seen a film being made, you know how much effort and special equipment is used to light a scene.

But wedding videographers don't have that luxury. We have to work with whatever available light there is. Particularly when filming a wedding ceremony, we don't want to use additional lighting. So what do we do? The bride might be coming down an aisle that is mostly lit by light coming through the windows. The altar area on the other hand might be largely incandescent lighting. Every situation will be different.

The first step is to analyze what you are dealing with. I usually eyeball the location. I decide first what the primary source of light will be in different parts of the room. I then decide how I will compensate.

Here are some ways to compensate for mixed lighting.

• Set the camera to one setting, either tungsten or daylight and leave it there. Then correct in post. While this has the advantage of setting the white balance to a known setting, it often requires considerable work in post to compensate, and the results will never be as good as if you had it right in the first place.
• Balance using a white card. This will give the the correct balance for the location where you are holding the white card. The problem is that it may not be correct for other parts of the room. Also if lighting changes you will have to set another white balance, not the easiest thing to do in the middle of a wedding ceremony. When I set white balance this way, I do it at the spot where most of the action is taking place, usually the altar.
• Use auto white balance. While modern cameras often do a good job with auto white balance, they can be fooled. It is like any other automatic setting, you are giving up a degree of control over your camera. That is not to say never use it. Many times using auto white balance will give you the best results in difficult lighting conditions. Just use caution and don't rely on it.
• Set the white balance manually to a certain color temperature. Not all cameras let you do this (you can't on a PD-170, but can on an A1). If you have the experience to know what setting to use and a good eye, this will often give you the best results. You can also change this setting on the fly as your subject moves from one area to another.

If you have a camera that allows you to preset multiple white balances, you can do this for different locations and switch between them as needed. As I mentioned, there is never one right way to white balance, you have to look at each situation individually.

DVDs, high definition, and wedding videos

Originally published Feb 18, 2008

There has been a lot of press lately regarding the imminent demise of Toshiba's HD-DVD format for high definition DVDs. The entire war between HD-DVD and Sony's Blu-Ray format wasn't good for the industry, as consumers were not interested in purchasing the next Betamax. Wedding videographers have been following this closely. Many have invested in high definition equipment, but have only been delivering standard definition to their clients due to the fact that few had purchased either a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player.

Hopefully this will change. Toshiba is about to cease production of HD-DVD. Netflix and Blockbuster are only renting Blu-Ray. Best Buy and Walmart have announced that they will exclusively carry Blu-Ray from now on. The only thing in the way of mass adoption by the public is the high price of Blu-Ray players. It is hard to find one for less than $350, where an HD-DVD player can be had for $150. The Sony Play Station 3 has a built in Blu-Ray drive, but it isn't the most popular game console.

Standard definition DVDs look very good on high definition televisions. With an upsampling DVD player (available for under $100), the quality is very good, not quite HD, but close enough for most people. If you have a really big 1080p television (over 50 inches), you will see a significant difference. If you have a smaller set, you may not. TVs are getting bigger though. I bought a 32 inch set 2 1/2 years ago for about $2000. That will get you a television twice as large these days.

So what does this mean for delivering wedding video on HD? I believe that in the future as prices drop on Blu-Ray, it will become the norm. There are those who don't think that high def DVDs will ever catch on, that online delivery will take over. The problem with using the Internet is that the enormous bandwidth required for HD video may not be available. Also there is a significant portion of the population who still does not have broadband Internet.

Also people like to have something tangible. If everyone just wanted to rent movies, stores like BestBuy wouldn't be stocking so many DVDs.

Since a wedding video is a keepsake, most couples would prefer to have a disk to keep. DVDs will be around a long time. As long as Blu-Ray catches on, it will too.

Our plan is to deliver both standard DVD and Blu-Ray in the future. This will allow our clients to watch their wedding on any DVD player, and also have a high definition copy to view on Blu-Ray.

By the way, lest you think of me as a Blu-ray fanboy, I bought an HD-DVD player in December. At least I didn't purchase too many movies. I did get used to watching HD-DVD movies from Netflix. Now I will have to buy a Blu-Ray player to do that.

Audio for wedding videography

Even though we work in a visual medium, sound is very important. So important that some high end wedding videographers actually employ people a professional sound man for each job. Most of us don't however. We do our own sound. More than anything this is what separates the professional from the casual person with a camera.

First, a microphone on the camera is next to useless for quality audio, unless the subject is only a couple of feet away (not the usual case). The most important thing in audio is closeness. If you can't get a microphone close, you are not going to get decent sound, period. So in most cases that means multiple mics. In a controlled recording session, these mics are usually routed to a mixing board where an audio engineer mixes each channel and sends the output to a multi-track recorder. In the event videography business we are usually not able to do that. We don't have a dedicated sound person, and we can't run microphone cables all over the place.

So what we do is to use multiple recorders, and/or wireless microphones. This way we can have microphones where we need them, but without the need for a mixer, and without long cables.

I will place a microphone near all significant sound sources. For the groom and officiant I will use a small clip on mic. This is connected to either a small digital recorder or a wireless transmitter. As most brides do not want a microphone on their gown, the bride is not mic'ed. Instead the groom's mic will pick up the bride's voice during the vows.

In addition I will place a microphone on the podium if there are going to be any readings. Music is another issue. If the ceremony music is only from the church's organ, a stereo mic near the rear is often all that I need. If there are instrumentalists I will put a pair of microphones in front of them. A singer will get her own mic.

The reception has it's own set of audio challenges. I always try to connect a stereo digital recorder into the DJ's board. This is often all that I need to pick up the music and the toasts (which are almost always through the DJ's microphone). I will also mix in some natural sound from an on camera mic for applause etc. If I can't hook into the DJ's board, I will place a mic near one of the speakers. This a far from optimal, and can be a problem due to the high sound levels. In this case I always use a dynamic mic instead of a condenser mic, as dynamic mics are usually somewhat more tolerant of high sound pressure levels.

Recording the audio is done in several ways. One is a wireless mic. This has the advantage of sending sound to a receiver that is hooked directly into the camera. The audio is placed directly on the tape, and doesn't have to be synced up when editing. Typically I will use the wireless for the groom or officiant. The other method is a digital recorder. There are a couple of types that I use. One is the iRiver 700 and 800 series mp3 player. These are no longer made, but have the advantage of a microphone input on the body. They are also very small. I will often use one on the officiant, as well as another on the podium. The other recorder is the Edirol R-09. This is a 48khz/24 bit 2 channel recorder that records to a flash memory card. I will use the R-09 for ceremony music, as well as at the reception, where it is used with live musicians. Recently I have been hooking the R-09 into the DJ's board instead of using a wireless. This allows me to get CD quality stereo sound of all the music played.

High definition delivery - Is it time?

Originally published Jan 31, 2008

As videographers move towards the world of HD, delivery is still a problem. One issue is the format war. Even though the balance seems to be tipping in favor of BluRay, HD-DVD still needs to be considered. The other issue is media. BluRay writers are out there for around $500. HD-DVD burners are more difficult to find. Media costs are still quite high. In addition software can be an issue, particularly for Mac users. Apple's DVD Studio Pro at this time only supports HD-DVD, while Windows users have a number of BluRay authoring products out there.

Regarding media, there is a solution to producing HiDef DVDs without investing in a new writer. Both BluRay and HD-DVD can be written to a standard (red laser) DVD. Using H264 encoding it is possible to put 30 minutes or more of HD video on a single layer disk and more than an hour on a dual layer disk. I have made HD-DVDs using H264 that play fine on my Toshiba A3 HD-DVD player. For wedding videographers this means that we can put our short form and highlights videos on a single disk. That is what I plan to do when I go HD.

Of course a lot of experts say that neither BluRay or HD-DVD will ever catch on. There is certainly some good reasons to believe this. Most people are quite happy with the image that today's up-scaling DVD players deliver. If there isn't a significant jump in quality, the public won't buy. This happened a few years ago when two competing high resolution audio formats, SACD and DVD Audio,were introduced. The improvement wasn't noticeable to most people. In addition all DVD Audio disks (as well as some SACD disks) would not play in an ordinary DVD player. At the same time, online delivery of music was getting popular. As a result consumers stayed away, and both formats died out.

This could happen to HiDef DVD video. If the consumer isn't interested, and online delivery of video takes off, High Definition DVDs could fade away. I for one hopes that this doesn't happen. My clients would not like it if they only way that they get their wedding videos in HD is to download them. When we have gone HD we will still deliver our videos on standard definition DVD. In they will still look great, even on a big HD television. We will be watching how the BluRay HD-DVD war plays out. Most likely we will also deliver on one (or both) of those formats. There is also the option of creating a high definition file that can be played on a computer. If high definition DVDs fail in the marketplace, we may give clients the option of getting their video in HD on an external hard drive.

Using a 2 way radio for wedding videography

Originally published on July 23, 2007

We tried something new at the wedding we did on Saturday. My second shooter and I have never relied on anything other than hand signals to communicate during the ceremony. As a result we have sometimes been out of sync on our shots. There are dedicated wireless intercom systems that would allow us to to communicate, but they tend to be expensive and some say unreliable.

So last week I went to BestBuy and picked up a pair of GMRS/FRS 2-way radios for about $70. These little wonders are designed for communicating over a range of a mile or two, and are (at least on the FRS channels) low powered enough that they shouldn't interfere with the church PA, or the wireless mics. I also purchased a pair of cheap computer headsets.

First thing, a few words about GMRS/FRS. GMRS stands for General Mobile Radio Service. In the US you will require a license from the FCC to use it legally. The cost is $85 and all members of your family can use the radios under a single license. It is not supposed to be used for business communication (family businesses excepted). You can operate at up to 50 watts, although most low priced handhelds run in the 1 to 5 watt range. FRS stands for Family Radio Service. No license is required, and there is no limitation on business use. Power is restricted to 1/2 watt.Most of the radios that you get at a typical retail outlet at 22 channel combined GMRS/FRS units. Channels 1-7 and 15-22 are for GMRS and channels 8-14 are reserved for FRS (technically FRS can operate on channels 1-7, but only if the radio is approved for FRS use on those channels).

For our purpose, the FRS channels are best. If you want to get a license for GMRS, you can apply on the FCC's website (fcc.gov). I did that on Tuesday and got my license on Saturday. However for communicating inside of a church, the power levels available for GMRS are overkill, and you are more likely to cause interference. Plus do you really want to spend $85 for a license if you don't need it? I only got one because I want to use it for other purposes.

I bought a model that has standard microphone and headphone jack so I could use an inexpensive computer headset with it.So how did it work. Actually quite well. Before leaving for the wedding, I did some tests to make sure that it didn't interfere with my wireless mic, iRivers or Edirol recorders. The only problem that I found was if I was running high power and came within 6 inches of the PD-170, it could screw up the picture on the LCD. When we got to the church, I made sure that we were not interfering with the church PA. This is really important. Make sure that the PA is turned on, and that you are not being heard in it. There are some very badly maintained sound systems out there, and it doesn't take much to have your voice coming out of the church speakers. That goes for your wireless mic too.

The church was one of those with a center aisle and two side aisles radiating from the altar. We positioned one camera in each of the side aisles. The priest requested that the back camera be up in the balcony, so my plan was to follow the bride down the aisle with the Glidecam, then run up to the balcony where the camera would be on a tripod for the remainder of the ceremony. This was a good test for a communications system as most of the time we would be widely separated.

During the ceremony my assistant and I were able to keep in touch and coordinate easily. When we had to change tapes (it was a typical 1 hour+ Catholic service), we let each other know so nothing was missed. The only problem is that it is sometimes hard to be heard clearly when you are talking in a whisper. We had to repeat things at times.Later, driving to the reception in separate cars, the radios again proved their worth when we drove right by the reception site (despite my GPS telling me that we had arrived), and had to turn around.

To sum up, a GMRS/FRS radio is a good low cost alternative to an intercom system like an Eartec. It isn't full duplex, but do you really need that? You also have much more range available (particularly if your use GMRS) when you want to use it for other purposes.

Soundtrack Pro woes

Originally published on Sept 8, 2007

While at the WEVA Expo last month I attended Larry Jordan's excellent Soundtrack Pro seminar. Now for all of you who are wondering what Soundtrack Pro is, it is Apple's audio editor for video. Version 2 was released as part of Final Cut Studio 2.

After getting back from the Expo, I was eager to put into place what I had learned. So last weekend I started refining the audio on my current project. This is a wedding that we did in June. I had promised the bride that she would get her DVDs in early September. Anyway, after a few false starts, I got the workflow down in Soundtrack Pro's multitrack editor. Once I had the sound the way I liked it, I was ready to export the project back into Final Cut Pro (the video editing application). This is where things went wrong.

The export function creates a new audio mixdown file. Unfortunately when I opened the file in Final Cut Pro, the audio levels were all wrong. Some tracks were too loud, some were too soft. I figured that it was my problem, and that I did something wrong. I treaked things some more in Soundtrack Pro and exported again. The audio still wasn't right.

Today, I looked on Apple's Soundtrack Pro forum. It seems like a large number of people have had the same issue. Soundtrack Pro screws up the levels when exporting a file. This is a bug that makes this product unusable for me. Apple never should have released the new version as it is. This is too bad, as Soundtrack Pro is really a nice audio editor. I will wait until they fix the bugs

Canon XH-A1 review - First impressions

Note: This review was first posted in the Video University Members Only forum on Jan 13, 2008.

Last Sunday I used the Canon XH-A1 for the first time at a wedding. This wedding is being delivered as 4:3 standard definition. However to get used to the A1, I shot some 16:9 HDV. The 4:3 guides on the LCD were turned on to keep the important action within a standard frame. The ceremony was inside a building with light coming mostly through skylights. So I white balanced the camera to 5500K using the manual color temperature control (thanks to Darrell Aubert for that suggestion. Much better than using a white card). There was enough light to shoot open at 1/60 sec with 3 to 6db of gain. I used the "Panalook" custom preset that I found on the DVinfo site (it is supposed to emulate a DVX100). This preset gave me very rich color, with nice skin tones. The result was very pleasing. At 6db gain, there is some noise, but nothing objectionable. As noted above, colors are rich but natural.

For the reception I tried both 60i and 24F. The room was typical, with light coming from incandescent fixtures in the ceiling. The toasts were shot as above (except for changing the white balance). I used my NRG Varilux light with the 60% diffusion filter. Using that filter really didn’t put out enough light. In the future I may use the 30% diffuser or shoot with the bare lamp.I experimented more during the dancing. I tried a couple of “high gain” presets that I found, but didn’t like the results. I also shot a large portion of the dancing at 24F. Using a shutter speed of 1/24 allowed me to shoot in lower light with very nice results (very film like). I was able to use my Sony 10/20 with 6db gain selected. At least there was some light on the dance floor at this reception. The results may have been different if they turned the lights down as they so often do.
What I like about the A1:

• An iris ring on the lens barrel.
• Peaking in the viewfinder. This makes manual focusing much easier.
• 20X zoom.
• 24F mode. Much better than the faux cinema mode on the Z1 and FX1.
• Audio level controls on the side of the camera. This is much nicer than the audio setup on the PD170.
• Excellent image stabilizer. Better than the GL2 and much better than the PD170. Hand holding is really easy with this camera.
• Instant auto-focus. Works quite well.
• Zebras can be selected from a range of 70 to 100 IRE. I used 75 IRE during this shoot.
• Extensive customization. There are a lot of parameters that can be modified. Much more than the Z1. This allows the user to get a lot of different looks. Some have commented that the A1 doesn’t look that impressive out of the box, and that you really have to tweak it. Fortunately there are lots of presets to be found on the Internet.

What I don't like:

• The iris ring is too close to the zoom ring. Too often I ended up stopping down the lens when trying to zoom manually. I also found myself moving it inadvertently when reaching for other things. I am sure that I will get used to it though. The autofocus switch is too small and hard to find. A nitpick, but I am used to the PD170. The same thing with the menu button.
• While I love the ability to select zebras in a range to 70 to 100 IRE, I would like to have the ability to switch between two settings without having to go into the menus.
• The LCD could be bigger (but then I am used to the equally small LCD on the PD170).
• The viewfinder and LCD were hard to use in sunlight.
• The viewfinder needs a bigger eyecup, and the LCD needs to be a hybrid like the LCDs on Sony camera.
• Low light – I shouldn’t complain here. If I wanted to have PD170 low light capability, I would have to spend more then twice as much for a Sony EX1. Running the camera at 1/24 sec shutter speed in 24F mode helps a lot, but it is no 170. I am keeping my PD170 for those cases when I can’t use an external light. However the A1 seems to be the “best of the rest” if you don’t count the EX1 (although Z1/FX1 owners would argue otherwise).

Overall I am very impressed with the A1. For what I paid a couple of years ago for a PD170, I have a very configurable, well built HDV camcorder. Canon really listened to what videographers wanted. The positives far outweigh the negatives. I am hoping to get another one later this year so I can start shooting weddings entirely in HD.

Canon HV30 - Initial impressions

We have been experimenting with this remarkable little camera over the past two weeks, including using it at a wedding. First, this is not a "pro" camera. The HV30 is an HDV camcorder for the consumer market. Is is small, light, and lacks the some of the controllability that we expect in a professional camera. It also uses a single image sensor rather than the three that a pro camcorder would have. The major downside of this is that the HV30 doesn't perform well in low light, relative to a three chip camera. However it's low light performance is better than most single chip camcorders.

While the HV30 doesn't have the controllability of a camera like the XH-A1 that we use, it still as a lot of control available. You can set shutter speed and focus manually. There is also manual exposure control, although you can't easily set a specific f stop. There are zebras (70 and 100%), as well as magnification and peaking to assist in manual focusing. You can also shoot in 24p (24 fps progressive scan) mode for a more film-like look.

The best part is that in good light the image from an HV30 rivals that of the XH-A1. Last week I used it at a wedding as a balcony camera. It was no problem intercutting the footage from the HV30 with the XH-A1. After a little balancing of levels you would be hard pressed to tell which camera shot what. Considering that the HV30 coast only $750 while the XH-A1 is $3400, this is remarkable.

I also shot some action footage at a local horse show a couple of days ago. The camera was hand held the entire time, and looked great due to the excellent optical image stabilizer.

Among consumer camcorders, the HV30 is top-notch. You can't get anything better for the price. You will be able to get professional quality images from the HV30 in many situations. Just make sure that you learn how to use it and know it's limitations. And excellent resource for the camera is the HV20/HV30 User Forum.

Blu-Ray authoring - solutions for Mac users part 2

In the last post, I talked about using Roxio Toast as a low cost solution for authoring Blu-Ray on a Mac. Here I will discuss another solution, Nero 8.

Nero is an application that only runs under Windows. This limits it's use on a Mac to Intel based machines running Windows either in a Boot Camp partition or in a virtual machine using Fusion or Parallels. If you have an Intel powered Mac, Nero will provide a much better solution to Blu-Ray authoring than Toast.

Nero can run either in a Boot Camp partition (where Windows is running by itself), or in a Windows virtual machine (running in OS-X by using Parallels or VMWare Fusion). I used the VM method. This has certain advantages as you can access files on your Mac filesystem by putting them in a shared directory. You should probably avoid running in a VM however if you have a low-end Intel Mac, or one doesn't have much memory. I was using a 2.66Ghz Mac Pro with 4GB of RAM running Windows XP in a Fusion VM. You will need to install Nero 8 Ultimate Edition and if you are authoring real Blu-Ray disks, you will have to purchase an activation code for the Nero Blu-Ray/HD-DVD plugin. This is not required however, if you are authoring AVCHD DVDs (This is Blu-Ray compatible video on a regular DVD).

As I don't have a Blu-Ray burner, I decided to work with creating an AVCHD DVD. Authoring is done using the Nerovision appication which is part of the Nero Ultimate suite. This is an all-in-one video capture, editing, and DVD authoring package. After selecting AVCHD on DVD, the next step is to add media assets. Nero being a consumer app, does not have the flexibility of DVD Studio Pro regarding the type of media that it will accept. You must have both video and audio multiplexed into one file. It accepts MPEG2 and H264. MPEG2 should be saved as an m2t (MPEG2 transport stream). H264 can be a Quicktime or AVI file.

Although Nero is supposed to be capable of not reencoding Blu-Ray compatible files, this does not seem to work. Because you have to assume that it will reencode, it is best to start with best possible source file. Therefore I exported my HDV timeline in Final Cut Pro as a 25mbps (roughly equivalent to the full HDV data rate) MPEG2 transport stream. This can be done using Compressor. I also exported another timeline as an H264 Quicktime file in Compressor. Both of these were added to the Nerovision project. After importing, you can then create chapters (Nero will not import chapter markers from FCP).

Once you have added assets, the next step is to create menus. Nero provides as full set of templates to work with, and some of them are not bad looking (you will have to download them from Nero if you don't have a boxed version). The nice thing is, unlike Toast, you are capable of doing a lot of customization. You can even create your own menus and save them as templates. While it is not DVD Studio Pro, you can still build some very nice custom menus. Just make sure that you click the advanced option on the menu creation screen.

After creating your main and chapter menus, you are ready to preview. Nero provides a preview screen where you can test things out. When you are satisfied with your menu, you will be ready to encode and burn your video. There are several options that you can set for encoding, and you can encode either MPEG2 or H264 (H264 is much more efficient). One note of caution. If you are using AVCHD to burn to a standard DVD, do not set the data rate higher than 1500kbps. While you can encode to a Blu-Ray disc at up to 4000kbps, you will get skipping if you go much over 1500 on a red laser DVD.

I found that even using the default encode settings that I got some very clean results which played pefectly in my PlayStation 3.

Before you create any Blu-Ray or AVCHD discs, you should read Phil Hinkle's article in EventDV on Blu-Ray authoring with Nero, and the Nero Vision 5 AVCHD Authoring Guide in Digital Digest.

Blu-Ray Authoring - Solutions for Mac users part 1

Since the recent sudden demise of HD-DVD, Mac users have not had many choices for high definition DVD authoring. Apple's Final Cut Studio currently only supports HD-DVD not Blu-Ray. While it was hoped that Apple would introduce a new version with Blu-Ray at the NAB show a couple of weeks ago, this didn't happen. In fact Apple skipped the show for the first time in years. Although Blu-Ray support will probably be added soon, it isn't here now. Adobe does have it in Encore, but many of us (myself included), are using Apple's Final Cut Studio (of which DVD Studio Pro is part).

There is little sense right now for the wedding and event videographer to spend hundreds of dollars to purchase an expensive authoring application if they have DVD Studio Pro. In the low cost category, there is currently only one native Mac application for Blu-Ray authoring, Roxio's Toast with the Blu-Ray plugin ($90 plus $20 for the plugin).

I have tried it and have not had much luck. While Toast is an excellent app for burning CDs and DVDs, the Blu-Ray plugin is very buggy. I tried authoring discs using AVDHD (H264) and have found that many times Toast would quit with an error before completing. I was able to author a disc encoded with MPEG2, but this is inefficient and uses a lot more space. Since I do not have a Blu-Ray burner at this time, I am burning to standard DVDs. With AVCHD, it is possible to get about 40 minutes of video on a DVD-5. MPEG2 will produce only about 20 minutes.

The other issue concerns the menus produced by Toast. Like most consumer oriented DVD applications, Toast allows you to create menus for your DVD. Unfortunately these are extremely primitive. It seems that you can only make a main or title menu. No sub-menus for your chapters. While you are supposed to be able to include chapters on your disc, I have not been able to get it to work, either from Toast, or by importing them from Final Cut Pro.

The Toast menus are also ugly and you have few options to modify them. Overall Toast's Blu-Ray plugin is not yet suitable for either consumer or professional use.

After reading Phil Hinkle's article in EventDV on authoring Blu-Ray discs using Nero, I began to take a second look at the possibility of a having low cost solution while we wait for support in DVD Studio Pro.

Nero is a CD and DVD authoring application that runs only on Windows ($110 with Blu-Ray plugin). If however you have an Intel based Mac with Windows installed, you can use it. Nero, like Toast is a consumer level application. But it is way ahead of Toast in capability. The Nero Vision application is quite sophisticated, and can be used to capture and edit video as well as authoring DVDs. Sort or like iMovie and iDVD rolled into one. The nice thing, is like iDVD it actually has some decent menus along with the flexibility to modify them or even roll your own. It's no DVD Studio Pro, but it will do.

In the next part of this article, I will discuss Nero and if it is a suitable interim Blu-Ray authoring solution for Mac users (at least those with Intel Macs).