Filming gigs

[scalpy]

[quote name='bluejay' timestamp='1473661739' post='3131961']
While a fixed, unmanned camera such as the Zoom is absolutely fine for showing the band and its audience from one single point of view, if available we tend to prefer a zoomable camera with a built-in stereo microphone (and me behind it), to make things a little more interesting. All totally amateurish, but fun. The Junkyard Dogs have both kinds of videos - plus a few professionally edited showreels. The following is one example of the zoomable camera from another band's repertoire:

[media]http://youtu.be/pqL__Tqhrns[/media]
[/quote]

Couldn't watch it..... Music stands onstage......

My apologies😉


Fine band, fine band and useful to see.

Looks like a non zooming zoom then me learning a bit more about iMovie. Thank you for your help.

[moonbass]

I think it's fine to record gigs with a Zoom, but important to remember they don't function well in low light at all, so make sure you get something bright out front if you're in a dingy bar. You'll get a lot less grainy picture. I think it's worth seeing if any of your mates have a DSLR camera as you'll get a better picture, and loads of people seem to have them nowadays. Also see if you can get a feed off the sound desk as it makes the sound a lot easier to control. Here's what I'm up to with two DSLRs and the output from my Behringer XR18
http://youtu.be/dN2JFWjn5FU

Edited January 29, 2017 by moonbass

[Bobthedog]

[quote name='moonbass' timestamp='1473711789' post='3132525']
I think it's fine to record gigs with a Zoom, but important to remember they don't function well in low light at all, so make sure you get something bright out front if you're in a dingy bar. You'll get a lot less grainy picture. I think it's worth seeing if any of your mates have a DSLR camera as you'll get a better picture, and loads of people seem to have them nowadays. Also see if you can get a feed off the sound desk as it makes the sound a lot easier to control. Here's what I'm up to with two DSLRs and the output from my Behringer XR18
[url="https://youtu.be/dN2JFWjn5FU"]https://youtu.be/dN2JFWjn5FU[/url]
[/quote]

Great stuff. Just watching / listening to their version of Little Wing.

[blue]

[quote name='Bobthedog' timestamp='1473716745' post='3132593']


Great stuff. Just watching / listening to their version of Little Wing.
[/quote]

Agreed, I like this band.

Blue

[scalpy]

We've just got an x18r so the feed shouldn't be a problem. The video looks and sounds fantastic and I really like the light bulb arrangement too. Bit of creative stage dressing makes a big difference. I've tried to rustle up friends with cameras and we're a bit short on ones with dslrs, plus I'd be a bit worried about leaving them in the audience unattended if I was to buy them.

[TimR]

I put this together from a very static single DSLR 4K camera. There's only one dynamic zoom and pan done by the operator at about 0:53. The rest is all done in iMovie. I think there is other software would let you add dynamic zoom and pan.

http://youtu.be/T_qERv4vDog

Edited September 13, 2016 by TimR

[wateroftyne]

Thread from the dead...

Here's my effort at a single-camera edit, recorded on my Zoom Q4n - in a less-than-ideal location - at last night's gig.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3KqoJdzOTA[/media]

[Silvia Bluejay]

I had forgotten about this thread! I feel I must mention my my thoroughly unpleasant experience of the Zoom Q4n. I bought one late last year, and had to send it back and ask for a refund - not because ot was defective, but because its performance wasn't up to scratch.
I bought it from GuitarGuitar who were excellent in reading the email I sent them (quoted below), checking the comparison links I sent to them in a later email, and admitting I was perfectly right. They offered a full refund and I can't recommend them enough.

This is my experience with the Zoom Q4n, as told to the guys at GuitarGuitar.

[quote]Hello guys,
I need your opinion and help on the Zoom Q4n I bought last week.

You see, we are extremely disappointed with its performance. It's so bad I describe it as not being fit for purpose. It's not that the device malfunctions - or at least I don't think so; the matter is, its output, both audio and video, is just not up to scratch. I bought the Zoom to replace the device we are currently using to film the band: a Canon Powershot SX40, a 4-year-old photocamera which also happens to be able to record video and stereo audio pretty well. You would think that a brand-new, specialised video camera would be a huge improvement, wouldn't you? Well, I was wrong.
Just to set the record straight, I did read the Zoom manual, and follow it to the letter. One of the strong points of the Zoom was supposed to be its plug-and-play capability, that is, choose a scene among the pre-sets, choose the audio quality, press REC, and off you go.

1. To start with, there is a weird thing to keep in mind. If footage is recorded in anything above WAV 44.1KHz/16bit, the audio cannot be reproduced on PC - any PC: we have tried four different machines with a variety of operating systems. I imagine that's because the computer's audio card or whatever isn't able to handle the vast quantity of data that high quality audio carries. Nowhere in the manual or in the pre-purchase online blurb does it get mentioned that you will have to drastically reduce the audio quality setting on the recorder in order to listen to it on PC and convert it to youtube or similar.

2. The Zoom's performance in the two settings I have extensivelhy tested, low light (Low Light Concert) and flashing lights (Dance Club) is pitiful. Since the low light setting especially was what I specifically bought it for (taking video of bands in a variety of usually poorly-lit venues, which the old Canon photocamera struggles to do), this is absolutely unforgivable. I have recorded three gigs using the Zoom as well as the old Canon. The latter totally wiped the floor with the Zoom: you can actually see what happens on stage, while the Zoom shows you little more than one dark blob. The only improvement is that it's a dark blob which has a slightly higher resolution. Not good enough.

3. The Zoom's performance audio-wise is also abysmal. Again comparing the Zoom to the Canon camera, and with both devices' audio set to automatic gain, the lack of voume and depth in the recording by the Zoom is positively disconcerting. While some of that may be due to being forced to lower the audio quality setting (as per point 1) in the Zoom, the Canon's audio quality is also equally low to start with (or we wouldn't be able to listen to it on the computer), and yet it once again wipes the floor with the Zoom.

I can let you have snippets of footage from both devices, to see and hear for yourself.

Now my question is - have I been sent a sub-par device, and would I be happier with a straight replacement, or is the Zoom Q4n really a bad buy in general? What's your experience? We have used older Zoom models both for audio only and for audio+video, and always been happy. I am now tempted to believe that the company is resting on its reputation and has released a dud, and hopes we won't notice.
If this is the audio and video quality that all Zoom Q4n devices offer, then it's definitely not fit for purpose, and I will have to return it and ask for a refund.
[/quote]

So, the Zoom may look nice if you have no other device for a straight comparison, but watch out if you are already using a decent piece of kit, as in my experience you are likely to be disappointed.

Edited January 29, 2017 by bluejay

[wateroftyne]

I would never expect to the Q4n footage to compete with a DSLR or decent bridge camera, but if the lighting is decent enough (unlike my example above!) it's not bad. (Incidentally, I don't use the low-light option. The blacks lose their depth.)

I've got no complaints whatsoever about the mics - a little tweak in post, and I think they sound just fine.

I've never had any issues with the audio not playing on my Macbook either.

Can you post your clips here? I'm intrigued.

[wateroftyne]

Here's a couple of other clips I've done with the Q4n:

(The camera is behind the PA on the first one, and there's no monitors... hence the missing vox)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2Xc20kBpeA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6bO52qiX_M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y-YggnBz-w&t=41s

[Silvia Bluejay]

I'm re-uploding the .MOV files to my Dropbox. Due to their size, I'll leave them there only for a day or so, or they'll clog my space.
The guys from GuitarGuitar never commented about my observation regarding the sound quality that can't be reproduced on PC. I'm absolutely sure it was nothing to do with us, as we tried on different machines (as I explain above).
For my live recordings I am now still using the old Canon SX40, which wasn't a DSLR or even a bridge camera, just a slightly bigger version of a compact. I pair it with an entry-level DSLR with an additional stereo microphone; the DSLR gives us better image quality but the sound isn't as good as the SX40.

Edited January 29, 2017 by bluejay

[Woodinblack]

I have a q2n now - got some video at new year which was ok. Went to get some last night which would have been a good gig (as I got a bracket to tie it to something) and it wouldn't turn on. Tried 3 sets of batteries, nothing. Thought it must be broken. Came home and tried another set of batteries and it was fine, so I guess I just had some poor batteries on it. Which is a shame, last nights gig was really heaving, the previous gigs looked a bit quiet!

[Silvia Bluejay]

Comparison files below. They are both .MOV files straight from each device, no conversion or editing whatsoever. One clip is truncated, but there's enough of it for a comparison.

[url="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/90710763/Canon%20SX40.MOV"]Canon SX40 version[/url]

[url="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/90710763/Zoom%20Q4n.MOV"]Zoom Q4n version[/url]

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='bluejay' timestamp='1485719801' post='3226122']
For my live recordings I am now still using the old Canon SX40, which wasn't a DSLR or even a bridge camera, just a slightly bigger version of a compact. I pair it with an entry-level DSLR with an additional stereo microphone; the DSLR gives us better image quality but the sound isn't as good as the SX40.
[/quote]
It might be 5 years old, but the SX40 was still a £400 camera with a decent bit of glass on it. I don't think you can expect a the Q4n to compete. What mic are you using?

[mrtcat]

Posted this elsewhere but we found these very useable for video:

[url="https://www.amazon.co.uk/AKASO-EK7000-Waterproof-Rechargeable-Accessories/dp/B01HPXH29Q/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1485720352&sr=8-3&keywords=action+camera"]https://www.amazon.c...s=action+camera[/url]

Unfortunately not so great for audio so we usually take a feed from the desk into reaper on a laptop

We used a few to do this (in two takes)

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig0XIL32xEQ[/media]

and this in one take at a gig

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CutYNHBTaA8[/media]

[Silvia Bluejay]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1485720556' post='3226135']
It might be 5 years old, but the SX40 was still a £400 camera with a decent bit of glass on it. I don't think you can expect a the Q4n to compete. What mic are you using?
[/quote]

No extra mic on the SX40 - it's got a built-in stereo mic. The DSLR I use for filming has a decent, but mono, mic, and I'm currently plugging into the camera's microphone input a small stereo mic which I might have to replace with a more expensive version in the future.

Edited January 29, 2017 by bluejay

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='bluejay' timestamp='1485720533' post='3226134']
Comparison files below. They are both .MOV files straight from each device, no conversion or editing whatsoever. One clip is truncated, but there's enough of it for a comparison.

[url="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/90710763/Canon%20SX40.MOV"]Canon SX40 version[/url]

[url="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/90710763/Zoom%20Q4n.MOV"]Zoom Q4n version[/url]
[/quote]

Ta.

OK.. obviously I don't know how it sounded in the room, but:

I agree the Q4n sounds a bit dense. Maybe a little bit of a nudge to give it some air would sort that out? Maybe it was duff?

The SX40 has more ambience, but it's clipping so much it's - IMO - unlistenable.

Did you have the mics set to XY on the Qn4?

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='bluejay' timestamp='1485721053' post='3226144']
No extra mic on the SX40 - it's got a built-in stereo mic. The DSLR I use for filming has a decent, but mono, mic, and I'm currently plugging into the camera's microphone input a small stereo mic which I might have to replace with a more expensive version in the future.
[/quote]

All of which will add up to more than £250, I'm guessing?

[Silvia Bluejay]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1485721129' post='3226146']
Ta.

OK.. obviously I don't know how it sounded in the room, but:

I agree the Q4n sounds a bit dense. Maybe a little bit of a nudge to give it some air would sort that out? Maybe it was duff?

The SX40 has more ambience, but it's clipping so much it's - IMO - unlistenable.

Did you have the mics set to XY on the Qn4?
[/quote]

It wasn't a duff (or the guys at GuitarGuitar would have noticed and undoubtedly told me...). Yes it was set to XY, and no amount of tweaking or prodding could persuade it to perform.
The video from the SX40 sounds absolutely fine when played on the latest apps on win10 for instance, I can't hear any clipping.

Edited January 29, 2017 by bluejay

[Silvia Bluejay]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1485721174' post='3226148']
All of which will add up to more than £250, I'm guessing?
[/quote]

I certainly didn't pay £400 for my then brand-new SX40 5 years ago. Regardless, all I wanted from the Zoom wasn't for it to be a DSLR, it just needed to record audio and film video properly. Whatever I paid for the SX40 also covered the huge built-in optical zoom, the equally huge digital zoom, the excellent software, the fact that it's mostly made of metal versus the cheap, lightweight plastic of the Zoom, and the fact it took great photos (although it's now obsolescent from that point of view)...

Edited January 29, 2017 by bluejay

[wateroftyne]

Strange.. my Q4n doesn't sound like that at all (see previous clips), but then again I wasn't in the room.

The SX40 clip is clipping. Honest.

[Silvia Bluejay]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1485721688' post='3226160']
Strange.. my Q4n doesn't sound like that at all (see previous clips), but then again I wasn't in the room.

The SX40 clip is clipping. Honest.
[/quote]

We have to agree to differ, also because the volume in the room was almost intolerable, so it didn't sound that good in the first place. I'm done with buying Zoom products, I'm afraid.

[wateroftyne]

It's wierd. I just haven't had the same problems. The Q4n sounds fine to me.

[quote name='bluejay' timestamp='1485722070' post='3226169']
We have to agree to differ, also because the volume in the room was almost intolerable, so it didn't sound that good in the first place.
[/quote]

....ahhhh.

[Silvia Bluejay]

Yup, both devices did the best of a bad job and the SX40 came out on top in our opinion.

[mrtcat]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1485721688' post='3226160']
Strange.. my Q4n doesn't sound like that at all (see previous clips), but then again I wasn't in the room.

The SX40 clip is clipping. Honest.
[/quote]

That's the main reason I would prefer to take a laptop and use a feed from the desk. There's so many variables in a room that you can't be sure to get a clean recording with balance using the mic on a camera. I'd happily put a couple of mics into the room to supplement the instrument mics then tidy things up a DAW.