Small Video Camera to clip on to my bass headstock.

[jazzyvee]

I have a few large gigs coming up this summer and the latter part of the year, and I am looking for a video camera that will fit on to the headstock of my bass so that I can record and film what i'm doing on stage and what's going on around me. Also that has over an hour recording time. Can anyone recommend such a camera that has both good quality sound & vision and not heavy enough to pull my headstock down.

Thanks

[Silvia Bluejay]

I think I've seen ads recommending the Zoom Q2n 4K, which is what we use (on tripods) for our gigs. It's very lightweight, highly wide-angle (so it shouldn't chop your head off the scene if you have it on the headstock) and will record as many hours as the microSD card you put in it allows. We use fast, 256GB microSDs that will record just over 7 hours. A 128GB microSD will record - you got it -around 3.5 hours.

 

Problem no. 1 - weight of clamp needed for fixing to the headstock.

We use large sturdy clamps, so a headstock would be a no-no for us. We opt for tall poles with a small tripod at the bottom. We use four Q2ns, one placed 2m high at the back of the band, two on the sides and one in front, in the audience.

 

Problem No. 2 - batteries. Even with new, good batteries, the damn thing doesn't record for long.

We use external battery packs with USB2 to micro USB cables. One more reason why we need tripods.

I think you can buy from Zoom an extra battery pack that will screw in under the Q2n, but then you're back to the excessive weight on headstock problem.

 

Edit to add: sound recording is all right, but we add to our setup, wherever possible, a Zoom H4n taking a feed directly from the PA, mixing into it in Reaper the audio from each Q2n as needed. If adding the H4 is not possible, I use a Zoom H1n audio recorder on the same pole/tripod as the camera in the audience.

 

Edited July 9, 2022 by Silvia Bluejay

[Happy Jack]

Incidentally, headstock footage is typically rather seasick-inducing. Assuming you don't stand like a statue while you play, you'll most likely be searching for a few 3-sec and 5-sec shots where the headstock was at least relatively still so the clips can be slotted into fixed-camera footage.

 

That being the case, you do have the option to strap a Q2n to your headstock at sound check or a few minutes before the gig starts, grab 30 seconds of decent footage (while you mime playing) and then remove all the gubbins for the actual gig. Just saying ...

 

[Mudpup]

I use a little GoPro Hero 3 and a sort of bulldog clip. The clip was on Amazon and was about a tenner if I remember correctly.

Works fine as long as it's a decent sized headstock. 

[Mudpup]

One of these actually 

 

Wealpe Jaws Clamp Mount Flex Gooseneck Mount Compatible with GoPro Hero 10, 9, 8, 7, Max, Fusion, Hero (2018), 6, 5, 4, Session, 3+, 3, 2, 1, DJI Osmo, Xiaomi Yi Cameras https://amzn.eu/d/557Fq8Q

[Silvia Bluejay]

What's the quality of audio recording of a GoPro at a gig? We have no experience of 'real' GoPros - we have had a couple of cheap Chinese copies and the audio is absolute rubbish, while the video quality is good in daylight.

[Stub Mandrel]

I recorded this with a go prounder next to the pa stack last saturday. Image quality excellent,  sound not too bad.

 

 

[Happy Jack]

Very useable video, and sound is way better than the cheap Go-Pro copies, but not nearly as clear as that from a Zoom H4n. Obviously it's an outdoor gig so different rules apply to the sound anyway.

 

I'd post links to some of our recent videos, but (especially for outdoors & festival-style gigs) we've used such a variety of recording equipment that I don't think you'd get much from it. 🙄

 

 

[Silvia Bluejay]

Also, despite me chasing the sound engineers around at outdoor festivals and yelling at them (imagine how much they love me), the mix is never as good as when done by the band's own sound engineer, who has worked on dozens of the band's gigs and knows exactly what needs to be done with the knobs and sliders at any given moment of the performance.

 

At least our indoor gigs are all engineered by me, so the only problem is dealing with the shape and sound of the room itself.

 

Outdoors or indoors, we always try to record audio from several sources, and then @Happy Jack works his magic in the Reaper mix.

[Jakester]

I haven’t tried it clipped to a headstock, but I/we use TomTom Bandit action cameras and they work fine for close up or band member shots when cut with a wider shot. There’s a few around on FB for £50 or so and they do do 4k video etc. 

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/TomTom-1LB0-001-00-Bandit-Action-Camera-White-Red/dp/B00WV69ZI4

[wateroftyne]

Headstock footage is a novelty for about 10 seconds, then it gets tedious.

 

If you’re on a budget, you’re best off borrowing a couple of GoPros (you’ll need to source audio elsewhere) or the aforementioned Zooms and placing them around the stage. That’s a much more effective way of capturing the event.

[EBS_freak]

6 hours ago, wateroftyne said:

Headstock footage is a novelty for about 10 seconds, then it gets tedious.

 

If you’re on a budget, you’re best off borrowing a couple of GoPros (you’ll need to source audio elsewhere) or the aforementioned Zooms and placing them around the stage. That’s a much more effective way of capturing the event.

I concur.

 

Camera angles make it more interesting... however, without decent sound, there's really no point. 

[Mudpup]

On 09/07/2022 at 14:37, Silvia Bluejay said:

What's the quality of audio recording of a GoPro at a gig? We have no experience of 'real' GoPros - we have had a couple of cheap Chinese copies and the audio is absolute rubbish, while the video quality is good in daylight.

Here you go....GoPro clamped on a speaker pole footage. Just the kick and vox thru the PA - everything else is backline. If it's a stupidly loud gig and the camera is too close it gets a bit compressy but it's ok on most occasions. You kind of figure out the best place to put it as you go along.

 

 

Edited July 10, 2022 by Mudpup

[Jakester]

17 hours ago, EBS_freak said:

I concur.

 

Camera angles make it more interesting... however, without decent sound, there's really no point. 

We recently got hold of a 360 camera to try out and it’s a really good innovation in the sense that it allows really varied shots. Not sure we got the best out of it but if you’re regularly videoing gigs could be worth it: 

 

I hired it via Fat Llama for £15 for a day. 

 

[Silvia Bluejay]

Very cool. 👍

Pity the noticeable difference in quality between the fixed camera at the front and the far better 360 camera. We have had that problem too. We used to use three Zooms and a DSLR (at the front), but decided to ditch the DSLR because its far better quality output in most settings, especially in low light, made our edited videos look inconsistent. (The Zooms are nice but not pro quality, so their output in low light is grainy.)

[EBS_freak]

Aye. As soon as you start increasing the sensor sizes and upping the lens quality, it really does start to expose the deficiencies in the micro cameras.

[EBS_freak]

Just out of interest, what are the gigs you are doing @jazzyvee?

[Jakester]

4 hours ago, Silvia Bluejay said:

Very cool. 👍

Pity the noticeable difference in quality between the fixed camera at the front and the far better 360 camera. We have had that problem too. We used to use three Zooms and a DSLR (at the front), but decided to ditch the DSLR because its far better quality output in most settings, especially in low light, made our edited videos look inconsistent. (The Zooms are nice but not pro quality, so their output in low light is grainy.)

Yep - sadly owing to VERY truncated setup time (“band” singing to backing tracks - 2 hrs setup time; actual band ended up with 10mins!) we didn’t get to put the proper camera out, that’s actually phone footage from someone with very steady arms!

[Silvia Bluejay]

2 minutes ago, Jakester said:

... that’s actually phone footage from someone with very steady arms!

Well, hats off to that person! My hand held phone - or indeed camera - footage is usually vomit-inducing in all possible senses of the word... 🙄

[skidder652003]

Zooms have good audio but IMO terrible video.

The Chinese GoPro copies tend to (again IMO) do the opposite, good video but awful sound

Never used a proper GoPro so couldn't comment on the sound quality.

I sometimes use a canon 5D DSLR, amazing video and not actually bad sound (not as good as the zoom though)

Everything is a compromise between audio and video. I've yet to find or afford an all in one solution.

So for now, videos are recorded with cheap Chinese goPros (as Silvia mentioned, using a DSLR as well really shows up the difference against these GoPro copies so I tend not to use the canon these days)

As for sound, we use a combination of stems from our new zoom livetrack L-20 (highly recommended by the way, preamps are fab) and a tiny smattering of a zoom Q2n for a little ambient crowd noise.

The livetrack stems get mixed in Reaper as does the Video, so it's all relatively easy to edit in one DAW.  No transferring to DaVinci resolve for example.

I'll mix the stems first in reaper and render down to a master track.

I've used up to 4 different cameras in some edits, running in multiple timelines along with the mastered audio, all in Reaper. Nothing fancy, just cuts between each camera.

 

sorry....what was the original post?

Went off on a bit of a ramble there! Ah yes camera for headstock with good audio and sound?

Probably best to try and borrow a proper GoPro. I believe the battery may be good for 2.5 hours and the sound may be ok?  What about a high end mobile phone?

I imagine the recorded sound and video on an Iphone 13 would be pretty decent?

Edited July 12, 2022 by skidder652003

[EBS_freak]

Sound on cameras is always dubious - unless you are running external mics. The importance is always placed on the image, with the audio being a secondary concern.

 

Anyway, camera stuff. Here's some science...

 

Most cameras that are in common use, are 8 bit... which gives 16 million colours... which you'd think is pretty decent... however, there's a few extra things that need to be taken into account. First off, dynamic range... thats the ability to distinguish between the shadows and the highs. The higher the dynamic range, the better, and the better the ability to map a RGB value to the light that the sensor sees. Of course, you have to get the exposure right - and most cameras that do this, can do it automatically - and don't do it well in gig environments. They tend to overexpose the lighting - or/and the blacks are all crushed - again, this comes back to the dynamic range being unable to capture the full range of highlights and shadows. If you expose manually - and get it wrong, for example, underexpose, you'll artificially lose the dynamic range and crush the blacks... or if you over expose, blow the highlights. Gigs are notoriously difficult to film because of the requirements on dynamic range between the shadows and the highlights provided by lighting.

 

So DSLRs(/mirrorless) can help - in that they tend to have better sensors and lenses than most cameras - and better dynamic range - but in most cases, you are still at the mercy of 8 bit - which means it's essential that you get your white balance and exposure correct. If you don't - and try to do any colour correction in post, the image will just fall apart and look rubbish. Why? Because those millions of colours only translate to 255 shades of red, green and blue (not a lot at all)... which when you are trying to fix skin tones for example, doesn't give a lot of latitude as soon as you start pulling on the red correction. If you underexpose, you effectively decrease this number further. So what do you to make the best of a bad situation? Well, make sure your white balance is correct for starters (so you minimise the colour correction needs) - and make sure your exposure is the best that it can possibly be given the difficult environments - this may mean breaking out some VND filters. Getting the colours correct in camera is the best thing you can do to get the results. I know there's always those people that will advocate shooting in log (or cinelog) or whatever you want to call it... but in a gig environment, it's really is pointless on a 8 bit recorder.

 

The thing is though, people can kind of cope with bad video - but bad audio is another matter. When videoing, I try and always get a copy of what is at the desk for mix down in post (as mentioned above) - but sometimes thats off the cards and you just have to make do (always carry a field recorder with you). I do a lot of filming for a mate - and we now carry around a splitter so we can always get out own audio of all the source instruments. We've been burnt too many times from rubbish audio being given to us from the sound companies running the show. At the end of the day, they don't really care... but it can make/break your video.

 

In the above situation, I wouldn't bother with a headstock cam. They had their time in the 80s. I'd just get a decent cam and stick it pointing your way on a tripod and be done with it. In the first video, my nod to the 90s, was the fisheye lens from the back of the stage. It's probably one of my fave angles to be fair.

 

If you really want to push the boat out and get something more exciting to watch - get a load of cameras.

 

Here's a few things that I have shot - 

 

Silverstone Classic - 6x 8bit DSLRs, 1x10bit mirrorless and 1x12bit cine camera (on shoulder rig - that's me with horrendous lockdown hair). Audio supplied by PA company.

 

 

Marquee - (4x? - I can't remember) 8 bit DSLRs, 1 x10bit mirrorless, 1x12 cine. This is your typical nightmare gig situation where the lighting gets blown out and everybody tends to look purple.

 

 

6x DSLRs (8bit), 1x10 bit (from the back, messed up the exposure, you can tell (blown highlights that couldn't be recovered but doesn't look that bad), 1x12 bit on the shoulder rig)

 

 

As you can tell, the audio, isn't ideal in any of them... but more than passable... but I'm now in control of that so can mix to my hearts content.

 

Hopefully, this shows what results you can achieve if you know how to use your gear correctly. Those 8 bit cameras are doing quite the job - they are just old Canons running magic lantern - and 3x 200Ds. Not my first choice - but as you can see, they can get some pro looking results if you know how to make the best out of them. Practice, practice, practice!

[EBS_freak]

Should also point out - all the lenses used in the above are f2.8 or faster... which is another big factor in keeping ISO (and consequently noise levels) down.

[Stub Mandrel]

10 hours ago, EBS_freak said:

Why? Because those millions of colours only translate to 255 shades of red, green and blue (not a lot at all)... which when you are trying to fix skin tones for example, doesn't give a lot of latitude as soon as you start pulling on the red correction.

 

Actually it's 8 bits per channel, which is 24-bit total or just under 17 million colours.

[wateroftyne]

To be fair to the OP, if you just want to capture what you've been up to without too much fuss, just go down the Zoom etc. route.

[EBS_freak]

52 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

 

Actually it's 8 bits per channel, which is 24-bit total or just under 17 million colours.

I thought I made that clear? Anyway, I still made a mistake. I messed it up - it’s actually 256 red values, 256 green and 256 blue. I was doing some networking at the time so my brain was in 0-255 mode at the time. But irrespective, they are known as 8 bit cameras due to 8 bits per channel as opposed to 24 bit cameras. 16,777,216 colours in total.

Edited July 12, 2022 by EBS_freak