Mike wrote:
I am not an expert on this but it would appear that I don't need time
code. Its nice but not necessary. Time code is more useful for major
video productions. I have read you can get by without timecode.
example:
http://www.equipmentemporium.com/timecode.htm
If you are shooting video in synch, you either need timecode or a lot
of very patient people in post who are willing to put up with the weird
stuff you're bringing in.
I am aware that analogue recorders may not have the dynamic range of
digital technology but I am looking for a solution that considers both
"warmth" as well as dynamic range. Therefore an analogue recording would
be acceptable even though this decision may lead to a small sacrifice in
dynamic range.
So, rent a Nagra. Most film rental places will rent you a Nagra and a pair
of Schoeps mikes for a surprisingly reasonable price. They might even have
tape for it (which is where the real rub is today).
Good idea. What do you mean about the tape? Is it hard to find tape for it?
Emtec went under two years ago, and they were the last company making
decent quality 1/4" tape with slitting good enough for the Nagra.
Quantegy is maybe in business and maybe not, depending on who you talk
to. They make tape that will work, but isn't anything to write home
about. There are a couple folks ramping up for tape production who
might have something better in a year or so.
Now here is where my situation is a little unique:
What I find useful about the Nagra 4S is the 60 Hz pilotone signal it
can record onto the tape which is useful for synchronizing to film (for
double system sound) because the tape medium never advances at perfectly
consistant rates. Its used for speed correction in post production. This
is a more technical detail, however for some purposes this would be a
useful feature for me.
I don't think the S has pilot tone, does it? I think the S is the one
with the stripped down stereo output, no pilot no timecode.
I am pretty sure it does. Check out page 40 in that original pdf essay I
quoted. Here it is again for convenience:
Philipp Potz essay on audio recording:
http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Sorry, I don't have web access here. Perhaps I am thinking of the L
as not having pilot.
Pilot is basically not useful today.
I think you might mean "pilot is not used very often today" - I agree.
However, the technology is still there and it still works. I guess you
just have to be able to resolve the sync signal. I hope there are still
sound labs that can do this.
I still have a deck with a resolver but I haven't had a tape come in
that way in a decade now. If you are shooting video, pilot is not useful
at all. If you are shooting film, pilot means either using a camera
umbilical (and they haven't made motors that way in years) or using
a crystal oscillator on the recorder and a crystal synch camera and
resolving to that.
Why do you care about synch anyway?
Cameras with umbilical cables
hardly even exist any more, and everyone uses crystal synch. Speed
correction in post is pretty much a non-issue for anything other than
film work today.
Any audio recorder with the mechanical drive of a tape never is perfect
in speed consistently and always needs correction to be perfect for any
sync work - thats my understanding - I could be wrong however.
Why do you care about synch?
I read somewhere that DAT is good and precise to a certain degree but
because it is digital if you change its duration (if you have to alter
the length of an audio segment by 0.1% to fit telecine transfer rates
for example) it forces it to resample and you loose quality. On the
other hand analogue tape is always smooth. That is why some DAT
recorders have that special sample rate option to use 48.48 KHz (I
guessed the decimal) instead of the regular 48 KHz. That sampling rate
is for the 0.1% length adjustment for video transfers.
So, don't DO that. As long as you aren't shifting rates back and forth
all over the place, you don't have any problem.
I just thought of a possible solution: What I could do is buy two DAT
recorders and have one set to sample at 48 KHz (for film) and one set to
sample at the special 48.48Hz setting (for video). Then I would have the
best of both worlds without having to resample the audio.
Sure, but how are you going to explain this to the post house? And
why do you even care?
Yes, but the analogue recorder can be maintained. The Minidisc, you just
throw it away and replace it every year or two. Total cost of ownership
calculations are left to you.
Very true. But can you still find the tape for a Nagra 4?
If you look around there are still stocks of 468 in closets here and
there.
Youre right. Analogue tape is not consistent in speed. However, I don't
think I need timecode. If I am using analogue tape such as a Nagra I
would need some sort of sync signal. It is often noted on film groups
that it is important to know that a DAT (or minidisc) cannot accept an
external sinc reference. Minidisc doesn't need it because it is
electronically perfect but I am not sure about DAT because DAT is driven
by a mechanical drive mechanism. I suppose the speed consistency of the
drive might be good enough but I just am not sure if it is wise to
resample DAT data simply because it is digital. Somewhere in that sound
essay by Philipp Potz he writes something to this effect.
Minidisc is electronically perfect? You are joking. I cannot imagine
a much flakier format.
Its just a hobby of mine and I would have a hard time justifying
spending much money on all this. I'm a musician and my wife is a
musician too. I also am interested in film making as a hobby. I have
made two super 8 films so far - don't laugh - I'm a real super 8
advocate. Yes, if I one day am able to raise my budget I will go to 16mm
but for now its 8 mm. Anyways, just to expand my creative tool kit I
thought it would be helpful to be able to do sync sound with super 8.
I've read all the info about lip-sync sound technology and believe me
there is more to it than I can even touch upon in this post.
Well, if that is the case, why are you doing ANY of this? Call the guys
at Super-8 Sound and look at an 8mm fullcoat recorder. There were a
bunch of them in the seventies and most of them were based on modified
Uher 4000 transports. You're going to need to have the sound on fullcoat
for you to be able to edit it on a flatbed or on an editing bench anyway.
If you were to record it on a Nagra, you'd play it back on a Nagra-T
machine with the pilot tone output of the T driving the motor on the
fullcoat recorder, giving you an additional generation of loss when you
made the dub. If you were to record it on a DAT deck, you'd play it
back into the dubber with the dubber locked to crystal.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."