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
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
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
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
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
