Do I need a Gl-2 or VX-2100 for this?
 

Hi all,

I use the 953 to record classical music concerts and I have a really special opportunity to record a prestigious piano competition in Europe this summer and was wondering if the 953's video quality is adequate for this task? As far as I know, the venue features full stage lights etc., so I don't think it will be a "low-light" situation. However, I cannot be 100% sure. (the audio part of the equation is fine:I use external pro audio gear, Beachtek XLR etc.).
I know, at times, that the low-light performance of the 953 can be grainy and disappointing to say the least. That is what has me wondering whether I TRULY NEED a Canon Gl-2 or even better (for low-light) a Sony VX-2100 for this type of work? Or will the 953 do just fine?
My second question is with a bigger CCD chip are there other benefits over a smaller CCD besides low-light performance?
And finally, would it be a waste to buy a high-end NTSC 3-CCD 1/3 inch camera such as the VX-2100 with HD so near?
Your expertise and honesty and any other shooting tips are greatly appreciated,

rent a pro cam

Yeah, look at the JVC DV500---1/2" CCDs, XLRs.

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : Yeah, look at the JVC DV500---1/2" CCDs, XLRs. -->>>

I would have a look at the Sony DSR390 rental availability too, as I tried it at a video equipment show and it was fantastic.

If you could find a place that had both and you could try them side by side it would be perfect.



Carlos

Re: Do I need a Gl-2 or VX-2100 for this?
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Stuart Deaver :

I use the 953 to record classical music concerts and I have a really special opportunity to record a prestigious piano competition in Europe this summer and was wondering if the 953's video quality is adequate for this task? As far as I know, the venue features full stage lights etc., so I don't think it will be a "low-light" situation. However, I cannot be 100% sure. (the audio part of the equation is fine:I use external pro audio gear, Beachtek XLR etc.).
I know, at times, that the low-light performance of the 953 can be grainy and disappointing to say the least. That is what has me wondering whether I TRULY NEED a Canon Gl-2 or even better (for low-light) a Sony VX-2100 for this type of work? Or will the 953 do just fine?
My second question is with a bigger CCD chip are there other benefits over a smaller CCD besides low-light performance?
And finally, would it be a waste to buy a high-end NTSC 3-CCD 1/3 inch camera such as the VX-2100 with HD so near?
Your expertise and honesty and any other shooting tips are greatly appreciated, -->>>

On a different approach, you could use the 953 under those circumstances and things would probably be fine. It all depends where will those videos be shown later.

Just be careful with the sound. I wouldn't say the Beachtek is pro audio gear. The only pro thing about it is that it uses XLR inputs and a good metallic box. You don't specify which Beachtek unit you refer to, so I guess it's the passive you talk about.

More important than the Beachtek is which microphone you are taping with. Which is it? This is a concert, so the microphone should be the most important thing.


Carlos

concert setup
 

Carlos,

Thanks for the reply! I use the Rode Nt-4 via xlr to a Mackie 1202vlz-pro then I go to the Beachtek DXA-4P for audio. On the camera side of it, I'm seriously close to ordering a Panasonic AG-DVC80 as I have read good things about this cam (including things that you have said) and the price seems good. It should also be worlds better than the 953 in low light. your comments on this? Thanks.

Re: concert setup
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Stuart Deaver : I use the Rode Nt-4 via xlr to a Mackie 1202vlz-pro then I go to the Beachtek DXA-4P for audio. -->>>

An excellent combination the Rode and the Mackie.

How far are you staying from the Mackie? If it's not too far, you can go straight into the camera without using the Beachtek. Tell you why: the Beacktek is very useful when you use mid level output balanced mics. But when you have line level signals, like the Mackie provides, the Beachtek may saturate.

Why don't you try it both ways: straight into the camera and through the Mackie. Just get a 1/8" plug to XLR cable adapter, about 3 feet long, and try both options. Whatever your choice is, leave the cable or the Beachtek always plugged in.

Be careful with the levels, as the Mackie's output can be a bit hot.

<<<-- On the camera side of it, I'm seriously close to ordering a Panasonic AG-DVC80 as I have read good things about this cam (including things that you have said) and the price seems good. It should also be worlds better than the 953 in low light. -->>>

It's an excellent option. The camera I would get if I lived in the US. It has an excellent audio stage.

Carlos

audio
 

I usually place the Rode in front of the stage and run XLR cables 50 feet or so (carefully taping everything down under the audience seats). I keep the Mackie right by the camera (1 or 2 feet) and closely moniter the audio level meter on the 953's LCD, adjusting accordingly not to go into the red (it does output a pretty hot signal). I keep an XLR connection all the way from the mic to the Mackie and on into the Beachtek through a 5 foot XLR cable. Because of the hot signal, the Beachtek usually is only up about 4 few clicks on the level dials and the 953's audio level is up only 2 or 3 bars (I use the full manual mode--no AGC). So I could get even better sound by bypassing the Beachtek and using the Mackie's XLR output with a XLR-1/8" cable? Are we talking much better? I've been generally pleased with the results that this setup produces and for the money I think the Rode is just awesome for classical music, it just needs a little EQ above 10khz (but I do master the audio in post anyway). Thanks. (I've got some questions on framing as well: it's very difficult to avoid getting the mic stand (Manfrotto) in the frame. Any comments?)

Re: audio
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Stuart Deaver : I usually place the Rode in front of the stage and run XLR cables 50 feet or so (carefully taping everything down under the audience seats). I keep the Mackie right by the camera (1 or 2 feet) and closely moniter the audio level meter on the 953's LCD, adjusting accordingly not to go into the red (it does output a pretty hot signal). I keep an XLR connection all the way from the mic to the Mackie and on into the Beachtek through a 5 foot XLR cable. Because of the hot signal, the Beachtek usually is only up about 4 few clicks on the level dials and the 953's audio level is up only 2 or 3 bars (I use the full manual mode--no AGC). So I could get even better sound by bypassing the Beachtek and using the Mackie's XLR output with a XLR-1/8" cable? Are we talking much better? -->>>

The setup looks fine and you are doing exactly as you should. You should try using the Mackie straight into the camera and see what you get. Remember: do that using a XLR to 1/8" cable. You shouldn't have any problem with a 5 foot cable, because the level is high enough and the camera impedance just 10K. Try it.

No one but you can say how much is better. I prefer to have the least things as possible in the middle of the signal path, and the Beachtek would be one more. In any case, if you use the Beachtek you should use the switch to attenuate it. Set levels so as to keep pots in the middle, or at least as much pots as you can, if you know what I mean.

Set your levels on the Mackie so you use all the mic input capacity, with a few very short peaks, and then set the master so you are always in the yellow region, with a few red peaks. In that way you will be sure your mic signal is clean and with no noise.

Then set the levels on the camera or Beachtek.

The camera should have a few red peaks too.

<<<-- I've been generally pleased with the results that this setup produces and for the money I think the Rode is just awesome for classical music, it just needs a little EQ above 10khz (but I do master the audio in post anyway). -->>>

Is a nice setup. Is that the stereo mic you are using?

If possible don't do your eq during recording: leave it for the post.



Carlos

mic preamp
 

Carlos,

Hi, I just got my AG-DVC80 and it is awesome! My question now is: should I continue going through the Mackie by XLR all the way to the 80's native XLR inputs or should I go XLR directly from the Rode stereo mic to the 80's xlr inputs? In other words, do you think the 80's mic preamps are as good as the Mackie's? Your assistance is appreciated.

Re: mic preamp
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Stuart Deaver I just got my AG-DVC80 and it is awesome! My question now is: should I continue going through the Mackie by XLR all the way to the 80's native XLR inputs or should I go XLR directly from the Rode stereo mic to the 80's xlr inputs? In other words, do you think the 80's mic preamps are as good as the Mackie's? Your assistance is appreciated. -->>>

Sorry to have taken so long to comment on your query.

You can certainly plug your mics straight into the DVC80, particularly if you are doing a moving project.

But you will have less control over your signal levels. As you should set your levels as high as possible, without clipping, that is easier to do and control when it's done outside the camera.

That is not a problem of just the DVC80, but belongs in ALL video cameras. That is setting levels and headphone monitoring.

Do this: if you are using a tripod, keep using the Mackie. If you are hand-holding go to direct connection.

Let's hope this helps.


Carlos