HV30 or T2i

[racer-x]

Awhile back I shot some live performances of my Brother and his band. I had AGC disabled and set analog gain to 23 decibels. It was the first time I shot a live performance and had no idea how loud it would be. I thought it would be fine, but I was wrong and I had some severe clipping.

Since that time I decided it would be safer to keep it at 6 decibels and amplify in post. Sure there will be some noise introduced when amplified, but there are filters for such things. I feel it's the lessor of two evils.

Now I'm not an audio engineer, so take my advice with a grain of salt............

[HueyNRolf]

Record at -12db peak and normalize in post. This is common practice.

[drapeama]

Record at -12db peak and normalize in post. This is common practice.

That's usually what I've been doing with the HV40. Now it's a bit harder to do such with the T2i, even with ML and the audio meters, it's quite hard to see where it peaks, unless it clips (red).
But so far I think I'll go that way for the T2i: MB4k > JuicedLink > ZoomH2 > T2i. Double recording: backup audio (and easier to sync).
Not the best option (would have been Lavs, I know) but being close enough it should give decent results (to my ears at least). I'll keep the SGM-1x on the HV40 with the other JuicedLink. Should do it, not being as close as the T2i from the "action".
I only hope it'll be all right tomorow (wedding). For one of the very first time since I'm doing that, I'm scared that something goes wrong.

[HueyNRolf]

Place the microphone correctly, that's rule #1. If you ignore this rule, then nothing else will make any difference.

I guess you're stuck with what you have now. So best of luck with the wedding.

[charlie_tango]

Place the microphone correctly, that's rule #1. If you ignore this rule, then nothing else will make any difference.

I guess you're stuck with what you have now. So best of luck with the wedding.

I am not a pro (that's for sure!) but from what I have heard from the videos draps recorded for the birthday of my childs, it was more than ok. I guess they won't complain much about the sound when they'll watch the DVD. I am confident that it will be ok tomorow. I have used his HV40 setup in the past and I always been pleased with the results.

[drapeama]

Place the microphone correctly, that's rule #1. If you ignore this rule, then nothing else will make any difference.
I guess you're stuck with what you have now. So best of luck with the wedding.

1) Yeah, both mic will be "camera-mounted". MB4k on the T2i's rig and the SGM-1x on the HV40. Both with windshield protection, so it "should" be ok. From what I've done in the past, it should give useable audio. They didn't wanted to wear lavs, so they'll get the best out of the setup.
2) A bit. I'm not wealthy enough to buy a complete wireless audio gear or additional audio gear just for that: when I know I probably won't use it in the future. I'm a bit stuck. I could buy it from the money I'll get tomorow, but it would be a bit useless if I don't ever use it after. I'm fine with the setup I have now, for what I do.

...Never been that stressed of shooting something...

[HueyNRolf]

They didn't wanted to wear lavs

Strange, I've never had anyone object to wearing a lav. Even if it involves having it taped to the chest for under-shirt concealment.

[CityTop]

OTOH, the HV's lens has quite a bit of chromatic aberration at its longest tele setting

Would the TL-H43 be a workable solution in your opinion?

[Janke]

Would the TL-H43 be a workable solution in your opinion?

Only if you need a longer tele than the bare camera can produce... adding more glass always degrades the image.

[HueyNRolf]

adding more glass always degrades the image.

Isn't that the truth.

[cgbier]

Even if it involves having it taped to the chest for under-shirt concealment.

If you had any chest hair you'd object to wearing a taped on lav too

[HueyNRolf]

If you had any chest hair you'd object to wearing a taped on lav too

Who said it was easy?

[drapeama]

Strange, I've never had anyone object to wearing a lav.

Yeah, I know, but they wanted something simple. The groom only wanted the ceremony and the preparation before. Everything else was "bonus" like he said.
So I guess if I'd done a "pro" job it would have been overkill in this situation. In fact, they were very kind and helpfull to the photograph and me: we "re-did" the wedding ring & the vows for both stills & picture + sound, as we were a bit too far. They've been very kind and they understood, so everything went quite well.

[HueyNRolf]

Yeah, I know, but they wanted something simple. The groom only wanted the ceremony and the preparation before. Everything else was "bonus" like he said.
So I guess if I'd done a "pro" job it would have been overkill in this situation. In fact, they were very kind and helpfull to the photograph and me: we "re-did" the wedding ring & the vows for both stills & picture + sound, as we were a bit too far. They've been very kind and they understood, so everything went quite well.

I'm glad it went well. Do a nice job with the edit.
So you shot the vows twice? Once for pictures and again for sound?

[drapeama]

I'm glad it went well. Do a nice job with the edit.
So you shot the vows twice? Once for pictures and again for sound?

1) Well, average I'd say. Charlie is more positive about it.
2) I'll try, I'll try...
3) Well, we shot it live, 2-cam setup. We were both too far to hear it properlly, so charlie asked them if it could be possible, and the photographer said it would be a good idea to take close-up on the rings and while they were doing the vows. So we shot it another time for both close-up and better sound. So we'll have 3 angles/shot of the vows and rings. Not bad.

[HueyNRolf]

3) Well, we shot it live, 2-cam setup. We were both too far to hear it properlly, so charlie asked them if it could be possible, and the photographer said it would be a good idea to take close-up on the rings and while they were doing the vows. So we shot it another time for both close-up and better sound. So we'll have 3 angles/shot of the vows and rings. Not bad.

So you'll use the sound from the close up take with the shots from the wide take? I think you'll have sync problems, but best of luck with it.

[Flozem]

Record at -12db peak and normalize in post. This is common practice.

I can agree with the -12db rule....
But unless it's music without a lot of dynamics - you do not want to simply normalize.... the result will sound wrong at best.

[HueyNRolf]

you do not want to simply normalize that.... the result will sound wrong at best.

How should it be handled in post?

[drapeama]

So you'll use the sound from the close up take with the shots from the wide take? I think you'll have sync problems, but best of luck with it.

Yeah, that's probably what we'll do. I think I could do something possible with Vegas by slowing it and playing with the pitch. We'll see.
I'm definitively not a "live-event" type of guy...

[HueyNRolf]

I could do something possible with Vegas by slowing it and playing with the pitch.

What were you saying about horror-weddings? Horror awaits you in post.

Don't you now think that the $20 AT lav might've been a good idea?

[drapeama]

What were you saying about horror-weddings? Horror awaits you in post.
Don't you now think that the $20 AT lav might've been a good idea?

1) Something like that!
2) Never said it wouldn't have been a good idea: simply that they didn't wanted something "that professional". Plain and simple, but could be written as "Pain and Simple" here. Anyway, I think I've found a way to "incorporate" the "re-shoot" sequence in the middle of the ceremony along with the 2 other angles, and it gives a nice mix. Nothing spectacular, but decent, considering the circumstances.

[HueyNRolf]

they didn't wanted something "that professional".

Professional means different things to different people. Mrs HnR wanted to see the British royal wedding, a while back. I'm not into the royals, but she wanted to see it, so we had it on. For me, that's a professional job. The sound was lovely, as was the whole production.

To do a decent job of wedding video, I think, you should get the vows recorded at least (the rest can and usually is a music vid.) and that involves getting a mic up there. Surely that would've been less disruptive than having them do the vows again? BTW, I still can't believe you got away with that. Everyone must've been thinking 'you can tell this videographer is a movie guy.'

Anyways, what's done is done. Of course skillful editing is about making the most of what you have. So do a nice job and please share.

[drapeama]

Professional means different things to different people. [...] Surely that would've been less disruptive than having them do the vows again? BTW, I still can't believe you got away with that. Everyone must've been thinking 'you can tell this videographer is a movie guy.'
Anyways, what's done is done. Of course skillful editing is about making the most of what you have. So do a nice job and please share.

1) Yep. As charlie pointed to me, they'll probably be happy with what they'll get, that's the saddest part of the story.
2) Well, better that than not hearing it right? I did the best while I was there, with what I had. Of course I could have use that little 14$ lav I bought (which I used for the Noir contest) and it would have been so much better, but they only wanted something simple. From what I've understand when I talked with the groom, the bride's father was usually filming. He used a Sony DVX-1000 that he brought to record some footage with only the onboard microphone. Can't be worst than that uh? As charlie said, they'll be pleased with the quality I'd be up to pull out of that mess.
3) Why? I simply been totally honnest: we where too far and what I picked up was unusable. They said it was ok, I guess the fact that the photographer (professional btw) asked for the same about the rings to get close-ups pictures helped a bit. I'm lucky they were simple and non-demanding customers.
4)What's wrong with that? I don't care what people say, as long as I'm satisfied with the results. Not to sound arrogant, but being perfectionist like I am, if I'm satisfied, then the customers will probably be too.

All that to say that I didn't really like to shoot with the T2i, experienced some "movie has been stopped automatically" 2-3 times with a freshly formated SDcard. I don't think I'll use it for Live events again. But I must admit that charlie really enjoyed taking pictures like a paparazzi and it gave nice shots. That, is ultimately a good news...

[Flozem]

How should it be handled in post?

I thought to normalize the soundtrack of the last wedding ceremony I did. While (ok I used Sony Vegas only) it'll work well on speaches, I found it resulted in utter crap on the live singer's performace.

So I ended up just manually increasing the volume on the song's event up to about -3db peak.

[HueyNRolf]

1) Yeah, both mic will be "camera-mounted". MB4k on the T2i's rig and the SGM-1x on the HV40. Both with windshield protection, so it "should" be ok. From what I've done in the past, it should give useable audio.

Seems you were wrong.

but being perfectionist like I am

They didn't wanted to wear lavs, so they'll get the best out of the setup.

Hmmm, surely a perfectionist would've explained why the lavs are necessary. I think any reasonable couple would've overcome their fear of lavs if told that without them the vows would sound like crap?