HVX200 production: double system or direct to camera

[c3kings]

Dear All,

I am doing a HD project with Panasonic HVX200 production, and I am not sure if I should record the sound to a seperate sound recorder or direct to the camera?

I understand if I don't have enough people, I just got stuck to record the sound to the camera.

However, let's say if I do have enough people, will it be better to record the sound into another recorder? You know, based on the spec of the camera, HVX200 records 16bit and 48HZ sound, which is just as same as the sound recorder I am going to use (By the way, which is a Tascam).

I must say that I feel very puzzeled that if the sound going directly to camera is as good as recored by double system. Why do people still do double system, which needs more people and requires to sync up in the post?

Also, as HVX200 and almost of all of the types of camears don't jam timecode (TC). Is there trick that I can do to let both camear and sound recorder have the identical TC, say if I have a sound recorder that can generate TC, like Sound Devices 702T?

I heard about that I can use the XLR sound input on the camera with line instead of MIC selected to connect to the sound recorder's TC out. Then the camera will have the same TC as the sound recorder runs. Is that so?

Thank you very much.

King

 

[BenB]

No, you can't sync time code from the HVX to a sound recording device, period. But that's not a very big deal. Sync'ing sound in post is pretty easy, even without TC.

If your recoding device is not sampling the sound any better than the HVX, forget it, record on the HVX. The exception would be if your mics sounded better using the pre-amps built into your sound recording device, rather than the HVX. Part of this will depend on how well your external microphones sound on both. Does your audio recorded sound better on playback than the HVX? Test it out, see what you can come up with.

Most folks use an external recorder for sound for two reasons; better quality pre-amps than what is in the HVX (which are good, very good, but not mind blowing good), and the audio recorder is giving them REAL professional quality sound at 24-bits and higher sample rates than 48. The 16/48 is CD quality. The recoding studio that music was recorded in used 24-bit and much higher sample rates.

 

[cesu pro]

also,... by doing the sound separately, it leaves you, the camera man, free to focus on the shot, and it gives the sound guy all the room he needs to record the sound he wants without getting in your way too much... i.e. he doesn't have to look at the view finder to check his levels, and/or run around 5 ft from you with the headphones barely staying plugged in. Now, if you are doing both anyways, then, obviously, it'd be easier to go straight to cam.

 

[Bob Kessler]

As Ben said the sonic quality and features of dedicated field recorders will be superior, they were designed from scratch to record sound exclusively.

As Cesu said, a separate sound recording system give a great deal more freedom to both your cameraperson and location sound engineer. They are not tied to each other by cables. Short cables will seriously restrict the movements of your cameraperson and your sound team. Long cables have the potential of creating noise and being a safety hazard.

A dedicated sound recording system will also allow the location sound engineer to monitor recording levels visually as well as in the headphones and gives him/her the ability to make level adjustments in real time.

It also allows for the possibilty of connecting lavs to the camera and the separate recorder to handle the booms giving you more options in audio post. At the very least the camera mic could act as backup sound and make syncing in post a lot easier.

If you have the option and the budget you should always go with a separate, dedicated sound recording system.