744T music playback for Sony F900 music video shoot...workflow tips?
Dave
Can anyone get me up to speed regarding using a 744T to play back
prerecorded, segmented music tracks for a dance performance piece being shot
on a Sony F900 HD camera? The shoot is essentially a long, dance performance
"music video", shot single camera "film style", in relatively short
segments.
I guess what I might need to know is:
1). How to prepare the music segments with proper, "syncable" timecode that
will work flawlessly with the F900, loading the 744 with the music tracks,
etc. Most importantly, I want to ensure that the 744T and F900 guide tracks
are locked tight to make post production smooth and cost effective.
2). What extra timecode sync equipment and cables will I need?
3).What slate do you recommend?
4). How much P.A. playback power do you think is optimum? The locations will
be mainly outdoor and constantly changing for visual variety. How much genny
power will I need to power a small but loud portable P.A.?
5). Anything else I'm missing?
I've got Wolf's book(s) coming, so I'm sure that will help clarify things.
Thanks so much for pointing me in the right direction. Cheers everybody!
Best regards,
Dave Mc.
Eric Toline
744T music playback for Sony F900 music video shoot...workflow tips?
Group: rec.arts.movies.production.sound Date: Sat, Jan 7, 2006, 9:02pm
From: dave.mc...@sympatico.ca (Dave)
Hi everyone,
Can anyone get me up to speed regarding using a 744T to play back
prerecorded, segmented music tracks for a dance performance piece being
shot on a Sony F900 HD camera? The shoot is essentially a long, dance
performance "music video", shot single camera "film style", in
relatively short segments.
I guess what I might need to know is:
1). How to prepare the music segments with proper, "syncable" timecode
that will work flawlessly with the F900, loading the 744 with the music
tracks, etc. Most importantly, I want to ensure that the 744T and F900
guide tracks are locked tight to make post production smooth and cost
effective.
What is the source material and does it have it's own tc? If it's a cd
with no tc then you have to record it to your 744 and create the tc then
in playback feed the tc from the 744 to the cameras tc in and feed audio
to the camera also. You also have the option of using the camera mic to
pick up the music as a guide track for editing.
2). What extra timecode sync equipment and cables will I
need?<<<<<<<<<<<<<
744 tc out to camera tc in.
3).What slate do you recommend?<<<<<<<
Any tc slate (Denecke-Ambient) will work but if you're feeding tc to the
camera you won't need a tc slate.
4). How much P.A. playback power do you think is optimum? The locations
will be mainly outdoor and constantly changing for visual variety. How
much genny power will I need to power a small but loud portable
P.A.?<<<<<<
Genny power is not a factor as long as you can get ac to your speaker.
You might want to look at an ac/dc powered active speaker system.
Something like an Anchor Liberty will work fine.
5). Anything else I'm missing?<<<<<<<<<
At the end of the shoot burn a dvd with the audio & tc to be used in
post for editing.
Eric
Courtney Goodin
"Dave" <dave.mc...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Is_vf.42613$X25.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Hi everyone,
>
> Can anyone get me up to speed regarding using a 744T to play back
> prerecorded, segmented music tracks for a dance performance piece being
> shot
> on a Sony F900 HD camera? The shoot is essentially a long, dance
> performance
> "music video", shot single camera "film style", in relatively short
> segments.
The fact that you state that the shoot will be shot "Film Style" in short
segments, leads me to suggest that you not use the 744 as your playback
source. While the 744 is a great portable recorder and will playback
timecoded music fine, it is not very good at cuing up playback. Unless you
are going to start each segment at the very beginning of the track, the 744
will be cumbersome to use. There is no way to set a cue in the middle of a
track and then repeatedly go to that cue to start playback. You must start
at the top then use FF & REW to try to pause at the right point to start
each take. This will quickly become tedious and impossible to do
repeatedly.
I would suggest making a Master recording on the 744t that has the music
mixed on channel 1 and 29.97 or 23.976 LTC Time code on track 2 (ask the
editor what TC rate the project will be edited in). After the track is
recorded, Load it into a laptop computer running your favorite Audio Wave
editor like. Audacity or Adobe Audition on a PC or (Peak on the Mac) and
use that to playback the takes with Channel 2 fed to a Denecke TC slate. Or
you could use my software (Bwf Widget Pro) that will also playback the BWF
file you created on the 744T and allow you to place multiple cues in the
track that you can instantly return to with a single keystroke. It will
also output countdown beeps at any cue point you choose within the
track..(download the demo and try it out for 15 days) It displays the Time
Code in big numbers on the Laptop screen which can be shot by the camera as
a TC reference or the Channel 2 recorded Time code can be fed to the channel
2 audio input on the camera. Playback off the laptop will be much easier
than trying to cue up the files on the 744T. Be careful trying to feed TC
to the F900s time code input unless you also are feeding it Tri-Level Sync
signal that is frame aligned with your playback (not easy to do with
playback TC unless everything is locked to a common sync generator). A TC
slate would be better and less chance of screwing up the video with green
flashes. Also, if you feed the playback TC to the cameras Time Code input,
every take on every tape will have the same Time Code. This will make Online
assembly of the final cut difficult..
So I suggest Leave the camera in Record Run and shoot the Laptop Screen or
the Slate at the head or tail of each shot while the track is running. Also
feed the line out of the Laptop to the Cameras Line Input. You could feed
the LTC from channel 2 on the laptop to Audio Channel 2 on the camera as an
additional reference.
You might need a separate Stereo Audio Distribution amp (or Stereo Headphone
Distro box) to split up the outputs from the Laptop or 744T to the Amps and
Camera inputs.
---Courtney
Jeff Wexler
"Courtney Goodin" <cgo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>While the 744 is a great portable recorder and will playback
> timecoded music fine, it is not very good at cuing up playback.
Thank you Courtney for such clear answers on this issue, particularly
useful as you are a 744T user. I have had questions similar to Dave's
but having not used the 744T for playback purposes (suspecting that what
you said about the somewhat cumbersome playback routines) I never really
offered any advice.
I agree with you completely that playback off a laptop is the way to go,
utilizing any one of a number of software programs for Mac or PC.
This brings me to another topic which is your Bwf Widget Pro software
which as we all know is PC only. As terrific as your software apparently
is (known only from your descriptions and the PC users I know who have
actually used it) I will not be getting a PC just to run your software.
Fortunately, there are more than enough options for playback in the Mac
world but have to admit that your description of what can be done with
Bwf Widget Pro is quite compelling.
So, as mentioned before and answered before, what are the chances of you
contracting someone to write a Mac OS X version of Bwf Widget Pro? I
would of course end up being your biggest promoter for the Mac version
and after development costs (I have no way of knowing how difficult this
might be to do) you would have a total cross platform solution for all
us and that would be a good thing.
Let me know what the possibilities of this are or just say again that it
isn't going to happen and I will continue to use the available solutions
I now use.
Regards, Jeff Wexler
Courtney Goodin
Thanks for the kind words. I have looked into "Porting" BWF-Widget Pro to
the Mac, but after careful examination it is just not possible. BWF-Widget
pro was written in Microsoft's VB6, a language that doesn't have any
equivelent on the Apple platform, and the entire engine of the program is
built around the Windows File List Box Control. That control doesn't exist
on the Mac (it would have to be emulated) In fact, it doesn't even exist in
any of the newer Windows API Programming languages Like VB.NET or
VisualStudio2005. So a Mac version would have to be re-written from the
ground up and Custom Controls would have to be developed to allow any type
of similar operation or performance on that platform. The cost to develop
such a program far outweigh the income that could be derived from the Mac
version. This is a small vertical market and programs priced in the
reasonable level like $99 just don't turn a profit. Utilities are written
mainly by a few people who have a need for such a thing and take their own
personal time to develop them for themselves. They may put them on the
Internet for others, (sometimes as Free downloads), but trying to market
them as commercial products is not a money making venture.
A better hope is to see what happens in the Mac world this month. With the
switch to the Intel platform, there is the possibility that someone, either
Apple or Open-Source developers, will come up with some solution to run
Windows Programs natively under OSX-86. I have heard rumors of such an
application, but whether it will be available in a legal or endorsed by MS
version I can't predict. Of course if it does work, you would have to buy
one of the new Macs to run the Windows software without having to go through
a translating emulator like Virtual PC. Of course that will not be a problem
for someone like you who likes to have the latest and greatest of any new
technology in the audio and computing world.
---Courtney
Jon Tatooles
right now. However, I was speaking to a frequent RAMPS participant last week
who successfully used it for a music video, cueing up to a specific A-time
time after time after time after time... If it was all that was available,
it certainly can be shoehorned, and Courtney's suggestions are very useful.
Jon Tatooles
Sound Devices, LLC
"Courtney Goodin" <cgo...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:dLudnbHkrrT...@comcast.com...
Jeff Wexler
"Jon Tatooles" <j...@wantnojunkatsounddevices.com> wrote:
> No doubt, the 744T can be cumbersome for a playback application as it is
> right now.
I would like to qualify my use of the word cumbersome in relation to the
possible use of the SD 744T for music video playback. I do not wish
anyone to think that my comments denigrated the 744T in any way as I own
a 744T and consider it to be a truly fine piece of engineering. I have
used many less capable and far more cumbersome machines in the past for
playback (got pretty good with the pinch roller in one hand and a grease
pencil in the other) and I would not want my suggestions to be taken
wrongly.
Regards, Jeff Wexler
Austin Storms
application, but it's quite a nice program for us non-linear users.
I know this has been discussed in the past and the answer was a no, but
being able to go cross platform would satisfy everyone. Since I know a
lot of mixers are going with the Mac mini on there cart for extra
tracks...ect and others are using Metacorder as their primary recorder,
a Mac OS X version would be sure to be successful. Without starting a
Mac- PC war, hopefully, this is just a strong suggestion. Cheers,
Austin Storms
Los Angeles, CA
Jeff Wexler
"Austin Storms" <Storm...@aol.com> wrote:
> I'm with Jeff here. I won't be getting a PC either for this
> application, but it's quite a nice program for us non-linear users.>Without starting a
> Mac- PC war, hopefully, this is just a strong suggestion. Cheers,
Courtney gave a very detailed and thorough reply to this idea,
explaining the programming language and api's used to develop Bwf Widget
program, and it is very clear that we will NOT see Bwf Widget Pro for
the Mac anytime soon or at all. I think we will have to wait for other
Mac programs to pick up some or all of the functions now provided by
Courtney's application, and this will probably happen. I will keep up
the search and certainly let everyone know as I come across
possibilities for us Mac users.
Regards, Jeff Wexler
Courtney Goodin
I have been told that most functions operate under Virtual PC on OSX,
although I have not tested it personally. I believe that the payback
features may not work correctly however unless you have a very fast MAC. Not
sure what bit depth the Media Player supports on the Mac under Virtual PC
either. May be limited to 16 Bit 48K and 2 Tracks/. All the other
Metadata related features should work though.
---Courtney
"Scott Farr" <sc...@farroutpro.com> wrote in message
news:1136756548.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Courtney will your BWF-Widget run on Virtual PC 7? I am interesting
> trying out on my PowerMac Dual 2.3 system. Have you had anyone report
> any problems?
>
> Thanks
>
Courtney Goodin
"Austin Storms" <Storm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1136743211....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I'm with Jeff here. I won't be getting a PC either for this
> application, but it's quite a nice program for us non-linear users.
> I know this has been discussed in the past and the answer was a no, but
> being able to go cross platform would satisfy everyone. Since I know a
> lot of mixers are going with the Mac mini on there cart for extra
> tracks...ect and others are using Metacorder as their primary recorder,
> a Mac OS X version would be sure to be successful. Without starting a
> Mac- PC war, hopefully, this is just a strong suggestion. Cheers,
>
> Austin Storms
> Los Angeles, CA
>
Austin,
Why don't you convince Gallery and Take Vos to come out with PC Versions of
Metacorder and Boom Recorder software?
They are not Cross Platform either. It would make more marketing sense for
them to move to include a platform that has 90% of the consumer market than
it would for a Windows programs to port to a platform that has only 5% of
the consumer market. Then you could just use a small PC or Laptop to run all
your favorite applications.
see This: http://www.littlepc.com/products_fanless_p3.htm
About the same size as the Mac Mini and has more features.... Runs on 12V
DC, No Fans, Firewire and USB2 support etc...
---Courtney
Jeff Wexler
"Courtney Goodin" <cmgo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Austin,
> Why don't you convince Gallery and Take Vos to come out with PC Versions of
> Metacorder and Boom Recorder software?
Remember Courtney when we discussed Apple's Core Audio and I asked you
what the Windows equivalent was, and we never really came up with an
answer (at least not one that I understood) but I think this may be at
the heart of one of the issues, why the Mac is the development platform
of choice for many. Take may chime in here (he obviously knows a lot
more about this than I do) but I do know that most of the really good
applications developed for the Mac having anything to do with audio,
make extensive use of Apple's Core Audio, part of the operating system.
I believe, in my somewhat uninformed way (I am not a programmer and
never claimed to be) that programs can be more effectively and
efficiently developed, when concerned with audio, utilizing rather
sophisticated programming that is already available directly within the
OS.
It is for this reason, somewhat differing from the technical development
problems you stated you would have trying to do Bwf Widget for Mac, that
Gallery Software (Metacorder) and Take V. (BoomRecorder) would have
trying to develop their software for Windows.
> They are not Cross Platform either. It would make more marketing sense for
> them to move to include a platform that has 90% of the consumer market than
> it would for a Windows programs to port to a platform that has only 5% of
> the consumer market.
The figures commonly stated for the "consumer market" are most probably
accurate but they do not reflect the realities of OUR marketplace (where
there is substantial evidence that in the creative fields, the
entertainment industry, and the sound recording world in general, have a
much higher percentage of Mac users. I do understand, Courtney, what you
have said about marketing realities and niche markets making it
unfeasible to develop software which will be used by a very small number
of users (on any platform).
I am personally pleased that Metacorder and BoomRecorder, both fine
programs, have forced many to be exposed to the Mac. I think that many
of the people here on r.a.m.p.s. who had no prior experience with the
Mac and were "forced" to use it to run these programs, will attest to
the fact that they have gained an appreciation for the Mac they would
not have had otherwise. I think the desire to have Bwf Widget for the
Mac is driven by slightly different impulses and considerations: for me
and other Mac users, people who use a Mac for 100% of their computing
needs personally and professionally, it is the desire to be able to run
one useful utility program on their computers for which there is not a
ready equivalent. From what I am hearing here, and from the number of
people who most recently purchased Macs, both Metacorder and
BoomRecorder are full blown applications to perform large scale
fundamental recording tasks... this is sufficient to warrant trying out
a new platform.
So, even if us Mac users are such a small percentage of computer users,
I don't think you will find any Mac user or Mac software developers who
would go out and buy a PC to run Bwf Widget.
Regards, Jeff Wexler (of course).
Also, I'm off to Macworld Expo tomorrow, which is to be expected, but
what is not expected (considering this mythic 5% usage) is why Macworld
Expo gets SO MUCH press... why are there so many so interested in what
Apple will do next? Steve Jobs can't be THAT much of a celebrity CEO
(although I don't think anyone would dispute the difference between a
keynote address from Steve Jobs vs. Bill Gates).
Take Vos
> > Why don't you convince Gallery and Take Vos to come out with PC Versions of
> > Metacorder and Boom Recorder software?
>
> Remember Courtney when we discussed Apple's Core Audio and I asked you
> what the Windows equivalent was, and we never really came up with an
> answer (at least not one that I understood) but I think this may be at
> the heart of one of the issues, why the Mac is the development platform
> of choice for many. Take may chime in here (he obviously knows a lot
> more about this than I do) but I do know that most of the really good
> applications developed for the Mac having anything to do with audio,
> make extensive use of Apple's Core Audio, part of the operating system.
> I believe, in my somewhat uninformed way (I am not a programmer and
> never claimed to be) that programs can be more effectively and
> efficiently developed, when concerned with audio, utilizing rather
> sophisticated programming that is already available directly within the
> OS.
Boom Recorder uses a very small component of Core Audio, only the HAL,
which is the most direct route to the actual audio hardware. One of the
interesting aspects is that you can tell Core Audio what function to
run when new audio is availble, something called an I/O cycle.
This thing also exists for Windows programming but is much less
advanced and more complicated. In Core Audio the I/O cycle function is
called from a real time thread and can tell you the exact time and
latencies for the input and output channels of a device, etc.
To increase reliability Boom Recorder also uses a buffer that is locked
in memory and will never be written to disk when the OS is tight in
memory.
Core Audio will even tell my program when an IO cycle missed its
deadline and dropped audio, in this case Boom Recorder will show a
warning and the recording is stopped (the timecode will drift on such
times).
But Core Audio is just a small thing that keeps me from writing a
windows application. First the instability of the platform, not per say
because of Microsoft, but just because a lot of hardware diversity and
badly written drivers makes it a little dodgy, just look into
alt.audio.pro newgroup on examples of weird issues.
Then, it costs a lot of money to get the development software for
windows, yes, i buy everything. You could use opensource compilers etc,
but those won't include all the windows APIs.
Third, I am by origin a UNIX programmer feeling right at home on OS X,
which is a reason why the file writeing for BWF and CAF is performant.
And fourth, most of Boom Recorder is written using cocoa, most of the
work is in creating the user interface and the code that handles all
those buttons, lists, etc. The audio part is actually less than 50 % of
the code. Porting the user interface to a microsoft operating system
will not happen until Apple licenses OS X to microsoft.
BTW, version 5 of Boom Recorder will be able to read in old polyphonic
BWF files into the history (and hence playback those).
Take
Courtney Goodin
"Take Vos" <Take...@vosgames.nl> wrote in message
news:1136901361.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hello Jeff,
Thanks for the explanation of your reasons for not porting. I agree that
there are support problems with writing for Windows because of the fact that
Windows has a 15 year legacy to support and that legacy involves the fact
that Microsoft never developed Sound for Windows in the beginning.
Creative's Sound Blaster became the default standard for Windows and it has
had to suffer with that legacy for more than a decade. Since there was no
Microsoft Windows created sound API, that opened up the field to hundreds of
3rd party developers, (Turtle Beach, Creative, M-Audio etc).. Apple has
never concerned itself with supporting legacy hardware since it made all the
profit on the hardware and therefore only profited by moving people to newer
and newer machines.
And I'm sure we're going to see that attitude demonstrated again today. (as
they make new announcements about hardware)
Our best hope for Cross-Platform functioning of software is that Apple will
create some way of running Windows apps natively on the new Intel based
Hardware. Of course you could dual-boot the bootleg version of OSX-86 on a
Windows laptop or PC, but that would be illegal (unless Apple decides to
sell the OSX-86 as a stand alone product)
---Courtney
Dave
Thanks for addressing my original "744 Playback" questions...much
appreciated.
Perhaps a question for Take. If I had a long stereo music track with
timecode loaded in Boom Recorder, can I introduce my own "markers" that
would allow me to access any point in the music track for quick access
playback during a music video shoot?
In general, how are laptop users getting timecode in and out of their laptop
setups? What extra timecode boxes or interfaces are required?
Thanks very much.
Dave
"Dave" <dave.mc...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Is_vf.42613$X25.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Karl W. Lohninger
music file and voila, c'est tous! Works with any application that records
and plays back audio. Of course you can get fancy too, preparing intro beats
on an additional track as well as preparing extra tracks for different
camera speeds.......
play back - attach your slate via cable or better, via a wireless system and
you're set-up.
Karl
On 1/10/06 10:07 AM, in article cNSwf.6839$Pq4.1...@news20.bellglobal.com,
Take Vos
Whow man, sorry, but Boom Recorder just finaly had playback support
last week.
Anyway I don't think Boom Recorder should ever become a full fledged
everything.
Take
Dave
Thanks for elaborating. I've heard so many good things about Boom Recorder
here at RAMPS, I thought I'd inquire. The fact that it does all that you
have already designed it to do is still amazing...thanks for making it
available to us Take.
By the way, I noticed that Apple has a new Intel-based laptop on their site
today. I know nothing about "chips", but will Boom Recorder run on this new
Mac as long as OS X is the operating system? From a computer expert's point
of view, why is having an Intel chip in a Mac machine desirable?
Cheers!
Dave
"Take Vos" <Take...@vosgames.nl> wrote in message
news:1136927074....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Courtney Goodin
> All software that was designed to run on the PowerPC chip will run on
> the Intel chip with Apples Rosetta program.
>
That's not completely true. Programs that depend on real time processing
(like recorders and editors or Multimedia software) will probably NOT be
supported by Rosetta.
Apple has stated on their website that all of their PRO programs (Final Cut
Pro, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro and many of the 3D Graphics programs)
will not be supported by Rosetta. They will all have to be replaced by
Intel Native programs. or their so-called "Universal" versions. Universal
versions of the Pro apps are not available yet and Apple will charge fees
from $99 to $699 to Upgrade when they are available.
Read more here: http://www.apple.com/rosetta/
----Courtney
Take Vos
> Thanks for elaborating. I've heard so many good things about Boom Recorder
> here at RAMPS, I thought I'd inquire. The fact that it does all that you
> have already designed it to do is still amazing...thanks for making it
> available to us Take.
Thank you very much.
> By the way, I noticed that Apple has a new Intel-based laptop on their site
> today. I know nothing about "chips", but will Boom Recorder run on this new
> Mac as long as OS X is the operating system?
I hope it does. I have been compiling Boom Recorder as a universal
binary since a week after the anouncement. I even have been doing
dual-endian work for al the file reading/writing code. So you can use
the current version of Boom Recorder on your MacIntel machine.
However, I've not tested it yet, and I know of knowone who has tried
Boom Recorder on an intel machine.
> From a computer expert's point
> of view, why is having an Intel chip in a Mac machine desirable?
It is faster than the current PowerPC processors, but Intel and AMD
have been making processors faster than anything else for some time
now. Also a dual core processor is nice as the performance is more
stable as a single process that uses a processor to its fullest will
not make the computer grind to a standstil. So this is better for
interactivity.
>From a developers point of few, it doesn't make much of a difference,
it could run on a ARM or a MOVE processor for what I care. Of cource
creating universal binaries means that it twice as long to compile a
release version (During debugging you only generate a PowerPC binary).
But a faster processor makes you more lazy, for example I've worked
around 5 full days in optimizing the IO cycle of Boom Recorder. On a
faster processor I may not have cared anough.
Take
Martin Harrington
>>>>>I just double checked my info, according the Steve Jobs, they have a
>>>>>crossgrade
program, were you trade in your pro disc for the new universal ones and the
cost is just $49.00. You must have the latest version of the program to
do the crossgrade for $49.00. Up grading older versions will probably cost
more. The applications he named were, FCP pro, Logic Pro and
aperture.<<<<<<
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"Courtney Goodin" <cgo...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:PNadnVUVJ4X...@comcast.com...
Take Vos
That would be great, I hope i've done everything correct and then apply
for the universal binary logo from Apple.
Take