|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> BTW you should get a tripod :-)
>>
>> I'm seriously considering that.
>
> They're very useful, and for static indoor use you can get some pretty
> cheap light-weight ones that will do the job well.
Yeah. The church doesn't really have anything the right hight to rest
the camera on. I just want something to hold it still.
Also, the camera seems to need to be a ridiculous distance away to get
everything in the frame. Is this normal?
> If you plan to get
> more serious and actually rotate the camera while it's on the tripod
> then you probably will want a heavier tripod with a smoother head (cheap
> ones are notoriously jerky when trying to rotate the camera in a smooth
> motion).
Yeah, well... I don't care about that! ;-)
>> And also bringing a decent friggin microphone to the next session! >_<
>
> Hehe, sounds like that could get expensive :-) For a start, where to
> place the microphoneS?
It's a PIPE ORGAN. I'll just put the mic on the floor at the other end
of the building or something! ;-)
In seriousness... I understand loud, pure sinusiodal tones (e.g., flute)
are notoriously difficult to record. (Or so my dad claims.)
Of course, the fun part is synchronising picture to sound...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Also, the camera seems to need to be a ridiculous distance away to get
> everything in the frame. Is this normal?
My camera (it's an old Canon one with mini-DV tape) has a little screw-on
lens adapter to give a wider field of view, without it you can't get much in
the frame.
>> Hehe, sounds like that could get expensive :-) For a start, where to
>> place the microphoneS?
>
> It's a PIPE ORGAN. I'll just put the mic on the floor at the other end of
> the building or something! ;-)
>
> In seriousness... I understand loud, pure sinusiodal tones (e.g., flute)
> are notoriously difficult to record. (Or so my dad claims.)
I would imagine you would get quite a different recorded sound depending on
where exactly you put the microphones, maybe find out if someone records any
concerts in another local church and ask their advice? As a first guess I
would say the organ pipes were designed so that the usual audience in the
church would hear the highest quality sound, so just sticking the
microphones down there would likely be a good start.
> Of course, the fun part is synchronising picture to sound...
That's what clapperboards are for :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Also, the camera seems to need to be a ridiculous distance away to get
>> everything in the frame. Is this normal?
>
> My camera (it's an old Canon one with mini-DV tape) has a little
> screw-on lens adapter to give a wider field of view, without it you
> can't get much in the frame.
Yeah, well... my camera is clearly designed for portability, not quality.
>>> Hehe, sounds like that could get expensive :-) For a start, where to
>>> place the microphoneS?
>>
>> It's a PIPE ORGAN. I'll just put the mic on the floor at the other end
>> of the building or something! ;-)
>>
>> In seriousness... I understand loud, pure sinusiodal tones (e.g.,
>> flute) are notoriously difficult to record. (Or so my dad claims.)
>
> I would imagine you would get quite a different recorded sound depending
> on where exactly you put the microphones.
Actually, some of my videos do sound far better than others, depending
on where my dad is standing.
> As a
> first guess I would say the organ pipes were designed so that the usual
> audience in the church would hear the highest quality sound, so just
> sticking the microphones down there would likely be a good start.
Trouble is, the audience seating is exactly behind me, so all you'd see
is my back. But if I'm using a seperate microphone, that shouldn't be
too bad. Actually the organ sounds OK from where I'm sitting (although
most of the sound goes over my head - can you see where the pipes are?)
The only trouble with that is that the manuals make quite a clattering.
I have to open up quite a few stops to drown that out!
>> Of course, the fun part is synchronising picture to sound...
>
> That's what clapperboards are for :-)
O RLY? :-P
Can I just maybe clap my hands together? That would work!
(I'm still trying to figure out why I had to manually adjust the
synchronisation on some of the videos taken with my camera using its
internal mic... like, WTF? It was 400 ms out!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
49141354$1@news.povray.org...
> Trouble is, the audience seating is exactly behind me, so all you'd see is
> my back. But if I'm using a seperate microphone, that shouldn't be too
> bad. Actually the organ sounds OK from where I'm sitting (although most of
> the sound goes over my head - can you see where the pipes are?) The only
> trouble with that is that the manuals make quite a clattering. I have to
> open up quite a few stops to drown that out!
>
A separate microphone offers the advantage to let you some freedom in
chosing the place and orientation.
I disagree that audience place is the best. Churchs and even more cathedrals
are not designed as musical theatres.
They are dedicated to worship, made mainly of stone or brick at least in
Europe. To make short, the reverb time is veryyyyy long.
All you can do is to get a good balance between direct sound and
reflections.
The issue is the length of wires between microphones and the camcorder.
A separate device for the sound is a good choice
What I 'm used to now is to make a close take (near the console) with a
stereo pair aimed to the top of the pipes and an ambient take with a stereo
pair aimed to the choir. I bought a nice compact device which comes with 4
built in condenser microphones and records 24 bits 96kHz .wav on SD cards.
It can bet set to record 2 simultaneous stereo files that you can mix
aftertime or put in 4channels sound
http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?prodID=1916
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Thanks for that :) an interesting read. So, this is a pretty typical
> organ, then?
If you're really interested... Start reading here:
http://www.agohq.org/guide/pages/pages_11_15/index.html
and continue through the following few sections. This will tell you the
names of the divisions of a "typical" organ, which stops are usually in
each division, and what they're for.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Mike Raiford wrote:
>>> So, the string division on this organ has dozens of stops?
>>
>> This is from the famous Wanamaker, the largest playable pipe organ in
>> the entire world. And yes, it is famed for its *vast* string division.
>> (The organ I played doesn't even have a single string stop. But then,
>> it's a *church* organ rather than a *theatre* organ.)
>
> To illustrate:
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ02Lu8Zuzw
>
Wow... just .. wow :) Yeah, definitely dos not sound like an organ. More
tantamount to a modern-day electronic keyboard, but the whole thing is
physical. Amazing what can be done with pipes.
> [Be sure to click the high-quality one. The sound is a bit better.]
>
> Doesn't sound much like a "pipe organ", does it? Sounds more like an
> entire orchestra. That's the difference. It's designed to emulate other
> instruments as well as being a pipe organ.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Good job - seriously!
By the way, I used to play the piano for my wife all the time when we
first started going out. You have no idea how many girls love a guy who
can play :) Unfortunately, there aren't many public places where you
can just walk up to a keyboard and go to town on it - schools and
churches seem to be the only ones.
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Michael Raiford wrote:
> Wow... just .. wow :) Yeah, definitely dos not sound like an organ. More
> tantamount to a modern-day electronic keyboard, but the whole thing is
> physical. Amazing what can be done with pipes.
Then there are the (movie) "theatre organs", used for soundtracks before
film had sound. They usually had keys for things like gunshots,
cymbals, snare drums, hoof beats, steam whistles, and so on.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Michael Raiford wrote:
>> Wow... just .. wow :) Yeah, definitely dos not sound like an organ.
>> More tantamount to a modern-day electronic keyboard, but the whole
>> thing is physical. Amazing what can be done with pipes.
>
> Then there are the (movie) "theatre organs", used for soundtracks before
> film had sound. They usually had keys for things like gunshots,
> cymbals, snare drums, hoof beats, steam whistles, and so on.
...and then there's this Wurlitzer rendition:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G-JrgiWDgmI
Even though the recording quality is pathetic, you still get an
impression of what an amazing instrument this is.
I still adore the sound of a plain old pipe organ though!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> To illustrate:
>>
>> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ02Lu8Zuzw
>>
>
> Wow... just .. wow :) Yeah, definitely dos not sound like an organ. More
> tantamount to a modern-day electronic keyboard, but the whole thing is
> physical. Amazing what can be done with pipes.
Yeah. Isn't it just?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |