PDA

View Full Version : Audio!



Joseph Ward
09-09-2008, 08:14 AM
What kind of audio would you like to see on this camera?:red_bandana:

killfilm
09-09-2008, 03:54 PM
24bit/48khz, line in, phantom power, no noise, meters showing -12, -20, 0, auto and manual override.

Joseph Ward
09-11-2008, 01:29 PM
24-bit@192 kHz 2 Full Size XLR In/Out Breakout Box, Phantom Power, Digital, Red Mics, etc.:alien:

brandon thomas
09-11-2008, 01:43 PM
24-bit@192 kHz 2 Full Size XLR In/Out Breakout Box, Phantom Power, Digital, Red Mics, etc.:alien:

we will never see Red Mics... dream on... and don't you think 192 is way overkill?

Even Solberg
09-11-2008, 04:04 PM
and don't you think 192 is way overkill?
You mean the way 4K is overkill for video? :)

Personally, I think 24 bit @ 192K sounds good. But let me have options - 16@44.1, 16@48, 24@96 and 24@192 would be a good start.

fde101
09-12-2008, 05:30 AM
How about a beeper with an off switch?

This is a STILL camera for crying out loud...

With movie capture ability yes, but if you're looking to optimize your movie capabilities, jump over to scarletuser...

Have you seen the grip yet?

http://www.scarletuser.com/showthread.php?t=678&highlight=grip

Tony de Vries
09-12-2008, 09:08 AM
we will never see Red Mics... dream on... and don't you think 192 is way overkill?

If you want to do 100fps or more for slo-mos, you would want your audio to sound nice when slowed down IMO. So you need 192 kHz. Or at least 96.
(slow down cd audio by 25% and you'll have no sound above 5kHz for example. That sounds dull)

And why not, plenty of AD convertors that can do it.

DanCar
09-12-2008, 02:18 PM
24-bit@192 kHz 2 Full Size XLR In/Out Breakout Box, Phantom Power, Digital, Red Mics, etc.:alien:My audio engineering book says that the human ear can not tell the difference between 48KHz, 96KHz, 192 KHz, etc...
So anything above 48KHz is a waste, unless you are trying to please dog ears.

Video resolution is different than audio. The human eye can detect much more than 10K video, considering zooming, panning, etc...

Kevin Halverson
09-12-2008, 03:03 PM
My audio engineering book says that the human ear can not tell the difference between 48KHz, 96KHz, 192 KHz, etc...
So anything above 48KHz is a waste, unless you are trying to please dog ears.

Video resolution is different than audio. The human eye can detect much more than 10K video, considering zooming, panning, etc...

The value of higher sample rates is not exclusively the added bandwidth they allow; a much more useful benefit is the much improved aliases rejection made possible by the higher sample rate. Delivery and/or storage data rates can be less than acquisition rates if properly down sampled post quantization. With proper data processing there is not necessarily an additional storage burden imposed by the higher sample rate.

David Rasberry
09-12-2008, 04:06 PM
It takes at least double the sample rate to resolve analog frequency. So 48K will resolve to 22kHz analog. Phase response and harmonic structure within the audible band are affected by how harmonics are resolved up to about 50kHz analog, so 96k sample rate is useful to fully resolve the audible range without altering subtle harmonic structure at frequencies you can hear. 192k sample is icing.

Frank Jonen
09-19-2008, 11:10 PM
It sure would be great if we could have higher end studio level recording quality in all RED cams.

If you're not familiar with 1-Bit audio yet. That's a bit like RAW for audio.
It compresses well and gives you the closest to the analogue original.