[videoblogging] Re: I shoved a camera in Jonny Goldstein's face at Beyond Broadcast ...question
Beth Kanter wrote: To answer your question re: bad audio quality [...] People will evaluate better audio fidelity differently than poorer audio fidelity [...] You're wise to get close to your subjects and favor getting good audio. Audio is half of the picture. I remember a study that was done in the early days of the HD debate by the audience research group at MIT (I don't recall exact reference) in which they surveyed user reactions to content that was shown in high definition with mediocre audio and Standard Definition with high quality audio and user reactions were much more positive to the standard definition video with high quality audio. Audio is important, but we're less aware of it since we process it in the emotional center of the brain rather than the logical center of the brain like visual material (I oversimplify, apologies in advanced to the cognitive scientists). There's no way to get around the laws of physics (sound falls of at a rate of one-fourth of the audio at twice the distance) and thus the professional sound recordists obsession with microphone placement. The farther from the source, the more noise vs. the actual audio you want. If you are on a tight budget you can regress to the past and use double system sound for example, take a small MP3 recorder and a lavalier mic and put that on your subject, record audio separate, now the camera can be anywhere and you will hear your subject clearly, and then sync it up in post (easy to do in Final Cut Pro if you record a simple clap or something that ties image to sound, like the slates they used to use before video brought sound and image recording into a single device). Yes, this is more work, but given audio is half of the picture, it's sometimes worth the extra effort. David. David Tames, Filmmaker Media Technologist http://kino-eye.com | 617.216.1096
RE: [videoblogging] Re: I shoved a camera in Jonny Goldstein's face at Beyond Broadcast ...question
If you are on a tight budget you can regress to the past and use double system sound for example, take a small MP3 recorder and a lavalier mic and put that on your subject, record audio separate, now the camera can be anywhere and you will hear your subject clearly, and then sync it up in post (easy to do in Final Cut Pro if you record a simple clap or something that ties image to sound, like the slates they used to use before video brought sound and image recording into a single device). Yes, this is more work, but given audio is half of the picture, it's sometimes worth the extra effort. This is very helpful David, thank you. I'm using a PC ... I'm using the free editing software on windows, moviemaker but it might be possible to sync them up or can I do it with QuickTime professional version. And, of course, I don't own a MP3 recorder, but I imagine those aren't as expensive as a better camera? grin
[videoblogging] Re: I shoved a camera in Jonny Goldstein's face at Beyond Broadcast ...question
Beth Kanter wrote: [...] I'm using the free editing software on windows, moviemaker but it might be possible to sync them up or can I do it with QuickTime professional version. And, of course, I don't own a MP3 recorder, but I imagine those aren't as expensive as a better camera? grin Many video editing systems allow you to sync up audio with video, but I don't know about Moviemaker. There are lots of relatively inexpensive MP3 recorders out there that are cheaper than a video camera. It is a pain to sync audio recorded separately, but if you have the time and no money, it's the way to go if getting audio away from the camera is important. David. David Tames, Filmmaker Media Technologist 617.216.1096 | http://Kino-Eye.com
[videoblogging] Re: I shoved a camera in Jonny Goldstein's face at Beyond Broadcast ...question
Good audio certainly seems important to the experience of consuming video, but I dont know if it needs to be 'broadcast quality'. Apart from th external mic options which I know little of, fixing in post-production or using a totally seperate device to record the audio are options, the latter especially making sense in the 'subject is far away from camera' scenario. In this area we can copy the best practice that I assume podcasters have been discussing for a few years. The probelms are that re-syncing audio to video can be a right chore, and mixing other post-processing of audio can only do so much to make up for bad recordings, and requires a fair amount of knowledge to do properly. Id like to think the tools and hardware will get better in future, but I dont see all that much room for improvement. Individuals may bring their knowledge up to the required level from experience, but its hard to see this stuff becoming a simple one-button operation any time soon, so hard to shield newbies from these issues. Ive sometimes hoped that in the future there would be lots of people online who have skills equipment that previously only very few had access to, and we could see a new era of post-production services provided online at mass consumer prices. So someone else could take care of these things for you. But this doesnt necessarily translate well to things like audio because the golden rule seems to be to get the audio captured right in the first place, maybe nothing can make post-processing significantly better or easier. Its a shame radio mic's arent all they're cracked up to be. Whilst its certainly possible to get a wireless mic working nicely, if you dont have too much control over the environment you are filming in, it can be a nightmare. I wonder if people are universally more susceptible to bad audio than differences in video quality - eg the video framerate issue I sometimes mention, that clearly doesnt bother many people or we'd here more about it, yet does make a very real difference to what the brains of the viewers are getting. The only audio I know I cannot stand is when you cannot quite hear the person talking, without straining. Wind or people in the audience coughing are 2 causes that spring to mind. Oh no Im having flashbacks to when someone asked me if they could fix their wedding video, and when I got it just about the entire ceremony was obliterated by strong wind noise into mic. It was possible to remove that noise but there still wasnt much talking left underneath. I guess lighting is the video equivalent of these audio issues? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Beth Kanter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I had the pleasure to meet Jonny Goldstein at Beyond Broadcast and shove a camera in his face and interview him -- ... I'm still working on the video ... http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2007/02/oh_yeah_and_i_s.html I'm still thinking about the comment someone made in the Beyond YouTube Working Group about audio quality and how it makes them shudder that the user-generated content doesn't have good audio. What does that mean? Certainly not everyone can afford to purchase expensive professional level equipment to ensure broadcast quality audio. How can you get acceptable or decent sound quality but use inexpensive equipment? Jonny Goldstein left me a comment on that post that asks Acceptable to who? (http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2007/02/oh_yeah_and_i_s.html#comments) But, it is a good goal to work towards improving one's production values. Here's my problem. I have a cannon SD800 with built-in mic. It's cheap and easy to use. It captures the video as mpeg on a card that I can easily get into my aging pc laptop with USB thingy and use the free windows editing software to edit. So far, I've learned that I have to get really close to the subject to get passable sound or I have to control the environment - take the subject to a quiet place. Thus, it makes hard to get an interview in a room with a lot of people chit chatting unless I put the camera right in their face and end up getting interesting footage of their nose hairs. Are there other creative workarounds? What are the cheap cameras that allow you to plug in an external mic and capture as mpeg on card? Beth
RE: [videoblogging] Re: I shoved a camera in Jonny Goldstein's face at Beyond Broadcast ...question
To answer your question re: bad audio quality, I recently came across this blog post http://clive-shepherd.blogspot.com/2007/02/audio-quality-does-matter.html In The Media Equation by Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass (Cambridge University Press, 1996), the authors make some profound and non-intuitive assertions about the ways in which people relate to computers and TVs. Among these are the following: 1. Audio fidelity will attract attention to media. 2. Audio fidelity will affect people's memory for audio information. 3. People will evaluate better audio fidelity differently than poorer audio fidelity. _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 12:56 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: I shoved a camera in Jonny Goldstein's face at Beyond Broadcast ...question Good audio certainly seems important to the experience of consuming video, but I dont know if it needs to be 'broadcast quality'. Apart from th external mic options which I know little of, fixing in post-production or using a totally seperate device to record the audio are options, the latter especially making sense in the 'subject is far away from camera' scenario. In this area we can copy the best practice that I assume podcasters have been discussing for a few years. The probelms are that re-syncing audio to video can be a right chore, and mixing other post-processing of audio can only do so much to make up for bad recordings, and requires a fair amount of knowledge to do properly. Id like to think the tools and hardware will get better in future, but I dont see all that much room for improvement. Individuals may bring their knowledge up to the required level from experience, but its hard to see this stuff becoming a simple one-button operation any time soon, so hard to shield newbies from these issues. Ive sometimes hoped that in the future there would be lots of people online who have skills equipment that previously only very few had access to, and we could see a new era of post-production services provided online at mass consumer prices. So someone else could take care of these things for you. But this doesnt necessarily translate well to things like audio because the golden rule seems to be to get the audio captured right in the first place, maybe nothing can make post-processing significantly better or easier. Its a shame radio mic's arent all they're cracked up to be. Whilst its certainly possible to get a wireless mic working nicely, if you dont have too much control over the environment you are filming in, it can be a nightmare. I wonder if people are universally more susceptible to bad audio than differences in video quality - eg the video framerate issue I sometimes mention, that clearly doesnt bother many people or we'd here more about it, yet does make a very real difference to what the brains of the viewers are getting. The only audio I know I cannot stand is when you cannot quite hear the person talking, without straining. Wind or people in the audience coughing are 2 causes that spring to mind. Oh no Im having flashbacks to when someone asked me if they could fix their wedding video, and when I got it just about the entire ceremony was obliterated by strong wind noise into mic. It was possible to remove that noise but there still wasnt much talking left underneath. I guess lighting is the video equivalent of these audio issues? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@ mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, Beth Kanter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I had the pleasure to meet Jonny Goldstein at Beyond Broadcast and shove a camera in his face and interview him -- ... I'm still working on the video ... http://beth. http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2007/02/oh_yeah_and_i_s.html typepad.com/beths_blog/2007/02/oh_yeah_and_i_s.html I'm still thinking about the comment someone made in the Beyond YouTube Working Group about audio quality and how it makes them shudder that the user-generated content doesn't have good audio. What does that mean? Certainly not everyone can afford to purchase expensive professional level equipment to ensure broadcast quality audio. How can you get acceptable or decent sound quality but use inexpensive equipment? Jonny Goldstein left me a comment on that post that asks Acceptable to who? (http://beth. http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2007/02/oh_yeah_and_i_s.html#comments typepad.com/beths_blog/2007/02/oh_yeah_and_i_s.html#comments) But, it is a good goal to work towards improving one's production values. Here's my problem. I have a cannon SD800 with built-in mic. It's cheap and easy to use. It captures the video as mpeg on a card that I can easily get into my aging pc laptop with USB thingy and use the free windows editing software to edit. So far, I've learned that I have to get really
