Bias Sound Soap 2 Keygen Music
Odina Conkright
I've been shooting a lot of 16mm and now going to a IIC. The IIC is always listed as an MOS camera, but I've found that I can use highly directional mikes and get rid of the camera motor noise using SoundSoap2 in PEAK. This works very well with my old ARRI S so that it's as quiet as shooting with my BL. I'm guessing it should work with a IIC as well. Anyone tried this???
Well Ive been typically filtering my audio in Vegas with the EQ manually, but I just did a demo of SoundSoap2 on their website and I am very impressed. From what I know if it can work with the BL it should work with anything. Would you mind posting or linking to a before/after of the BL sound for my sake, please? I ask because there is also the Konvas 2m which I am very interested in but most say even with a blimp it is too loud for synch (Id imagine the 50db only comes down to 40 or so with the blimp). If SoundSoap can remove the sound from the BL which is probably nearly as loud, it could work with the Konvas.
I have a arri-s and a IIC. The IIC is a bit louder. Remember that the 4perf 35mm camera moves four times as much film twice as fast as a 16mm camera. As a result there is bound to be more noise. I have been reorganizing my work space but I will watchout for my sound level meter. If I find it soon I will measure both cameras and post the results.
Okay, at ICEntertainment.us, near the bottom are two tests I conducted in the last hour with an ARRI IIC and (I think) a 24fps xtal motor. One's uncorrected and the other, well, you can guess. Anyway, I only spent about 5 minutes on fixing the sound and I'm no sound expert (remember -- student), and I think I need to still tweak the HF components of my voice a bit, but not bad for 5 minutes. I think I can get it a lot better.
It also sounded to me like your boom was a bit far away from your source, as the level was low. Also, after watching the soundsoap 2 demo, I think you might have more controls to play with to not chop so much treble out of your voice. Nevertheless, a very good first try, I think you might be seriously on to something here.
The room was a 40'x20' rectangle, mostly hard walls, with the camera setup about 20' from and pointing to the mike which was on a boom low to the ground and pointing up at about 30 degrees off vertical away from the camera lens. You probably heard I added 20dB attenuation at the mike (an Azden SGM-1X) which was better than 0dB.
I'm thinking about trying a couple other things. Mainly, running the mike into a TASCAM mixer and seeing what I can tweak out prior to recording. I noticed on the spectral response there is a noise peak from the IIc at around 1kHz, I was thinking of notching it with a low Q and seeing what I can get. The second thing is to try a mike with higer directionality. The Azden has some fairly wide sidelobes from 1-4 kHz.
I've been looking at ways to quiet the ARRI MOS cameras for a couple of years now. On the web site I have posted different ways of dealing with the sound level of an Arriflex 16S, and have sound clips comparing the sound level of the camera by itself, the camera in a Custom Upholstery Products barney, and the camera in an ARRI blimp. I also have sound clips of the camera in the Custom Upholstery Products barney and then with the camera noise removed using SoundSoap 2 by Bias.
I am working on converting an ARRI Lightweight Fibre Glass Blimp 16 to take an Arriflex 35 IIC with a 400 ft mag and the Cinematography Electronics crystal sync motor. I've gotten the camera, motor and mag to fit and the blimp really does quiet it down a bunch, not quite as well as it quieted the Arriflex 16S, but plenty quiet enough to be usable with a noise reduction software like SoundSoap. The big issue now is the ability to do follow focus, which I haven't worked out yet, as I had to remove the whole follow focus mechanism to fit the IIC.
The nice thing about the ARRI Lightweight Fibre Glass Blimp 16 is that even with the IIC, lens, motor, and 400 ft of Kodak, the whole package still only weighs about 55 lbs. Quite a bit less than the Blimp 120s that was made for the IIC.
Hey Tim, I just passed through Portland last week. Anyway, you are right the 120s blimp is real heavy. With the long lens extension and camera I think it is heavier that a Mitchell BNCR. I recently lifted both cameras fully loaded and neither are light but the arri 2C blimped up in the 120s is a beast.
As far as the technovision door goes... I love it. I have no reason to go back to the regular 2c door. The 2b door is really bad and the 2c door is a huge improvement but the technovision door makes everything much better. I think it is basically a converted Mitchell viewfinder system. It is just like MKII or a BNCR view finder. It has the two contrast viewing filters and zoom control (2X zoom on the Ground Glass) to enable precision focusing. Not to mention it provides a large and relatively bright image. The eyecup is just like the Mitchell and my camera ops can easily go between my Arri2 and my BNCR. Of course it helps that I have the anamorphic gate in my 2C so the viewing is the same between it an the BNCR. And when I get around to it it will be much easier to put a video tap on than a regular 2C door, lots of room in the viewfinder path.
I shot a feature with a IIc. We post-dubbed almost everything. I tried using one of those FFT filters for fun, but I never got what I'd consider to be useable audio. MAYBE outdoors if you shot with a long lense, it's doable. FFT filters majorly color the sound if you notice. It takes a lot of work to get it to sound right.
The only time I got the IIc quiet enough was when I had to shoot inside of a Humvy. I was outdoors and using a 50mm lens, the actors were inside with windows rolled up. That WORKED, and no FFT filters necessary.
I really don't suggest trying this kind of technique, at best you're going to get useable dialog but your footsteps and moves are going to get shot. The Arri II's noise pattern is like an air conditioner, it's spread through many frequencies, so it's hard to get rid of it.
George, I think you are right about the sound of the arri being to complex to be able to use the pattern recognition noise reduction algorithms. Theoretically you could do several passes, one for each simple tone, but you still would have the problem of reflected sound from the camera which becomes many more times complex. I think Trevor alluded to this in his post about the proximity of the mic to the camera. I suppose if one were outdoors or in an anechoic room, and the microphone were sufficiently far enough away from the camera them maybe noise reduction would work without coloring the desired sound signal to much.
BTW, I think my camera is about as loud as they get. It has doubtlessly had a hard life. When I got it was full of sand. No kidding. I did a complete tear-down and rebuild before I even turned the frame advance knob. I mean there was not a part of the camera that did not have sand in it, especially the gears. Runs good now though. I suppose if I lubed it up with some heavy grease I could bring the volume down a couple of decibels, but I think in the end an unblimped arri2 is a MOS camera.
Did you listen to the clips I posted above? In particular, the clip that had the Arriflex 16S in the barney, and had the noise reduction software added. The Arriflex IIC I am working with has about the same sound level as the Arriflex 16S I used in that test (this IIC has had about 20,000 feet of film run through it in its entire life, it looks brand new, and it has just been overhauled and lubed).
The beginning of the take has the camera noise, "Four, mark . . . Arriflex 16S camera running in the background with a barney . . ." at which point I used the noise reduction software. The rest of the take has the SoundSoap 2 noise reduction.
I don't think I would really be too happy with that, Tim. In a pinch it might work, but my advice is for you to try a scene with a few actors maybe ("actors" meaning any people who can walk around and talk), and some moves/footsteps thrown in. Try one with the camera noise and filter, and one without. Do it for a good 15-20 second stretch. Blast it through a high quality speaker system, and see what you think. Ask someone else's opinion. If you really are happy with this, try several different scenarios, approximate what you'd have in the script. Only then proceed with caution.
Honestly, I think you either aught to get a blimp, or get a sync blimped camera. You can go ahead and try the setup you like, and if it doesn't work for you, you can post dub. But post dubbing is not to be taken lightly. You have to record dialog, ambience, foosteps, and moves. It takes time to get it right and convincing. So pick your battles...
Hey Tim, I did listen to the file and no doubt that the noise reduction is amazing there is still the tell tail indicators of noise reduction having been used. I personally find those artifacts almost, and sometimes more, unsatisfactory than ADR. For example when the noise reduction is engaged it tends to sound more compressed, but more importantly the speech articulation frequencies (between 1.5Khz and 3Khz approx) are squished and the overall effect is a reduction of intelligibility. If you had layers of ambient sounds and lots of foley, and a bed of background music, I doubt anyone could tell the difference but if you just have the dialog, in a more realistic style of mixing, I think that most audiences, while maybe not being able to articulate it, would still know that something did not quit sound right. And George is right about the talent moving around, that will make a big difference, but not nearly as big a difference as if you have a moving camera shot. Try the test with an actor holding still and delivering lines and put the camera on a dolly and move it for the shot. The result will be an ever changing sound that no noise reduction algorithm can fix, because of the changing phase shift cause by the cameras changing proximity to the surrounding walls, not to mention any other acoustically reflective surfaces in the vicinity.
7fc3f7cf58