are there any quality differences between recording through camera mic input vs comp?

andrewkim9711

New member
I'm considering two ways to record instruments ( acoustic and electric guitar, midi player, violin, drums, etc)
first one is to connect the mic to the audio interface ( scarlett 6i6) and output the sound going into the audio interface into the camera by connecting the audio interface to the camera via external microphone jack 3.5mm. After, I will edit the audio I recorded with the camera and the mic with my computer with a DAW program.

second is by recording the audio by connecting the mic into the audio interface and connect the audio interface to the computer via USB cable, into the DAW.
and while I do that I record the video with the camera and put the video and the audio together in vegas pro or windows movie editor.

are there any quality differences between the two?
 
There are some top video people here so I shall just say that I found the microphone input on a Cannon camcorder to have a very high sensitivity and also an AVC system I could not defeat. This made for high noise levels. So, better I think to record conventionally with the AI into PC but also record a track with the camera's internal mic just for sync purposes?

Some years ago I simply ran the output of my mixer and the video from the Ccorder into the line inputs of a DVD recorder. You could do similar but use a video capture device such as the Dazzle USB unit. If you are in UK you could borrow mine.

Dave.
 
I'm considering two ways to record instruments ( acoustic and electric guitar, midi player, violin, drums, etc)
first one is to connect the mic to the audio interface ( scarlett 6i6) and output the sound going into the audio interface into the camera by connecting the audio interface to the camera via external microphone jack 3.5mm. After, I will edit the audio I recorded with the camera and the mic with my computer with a DAW program.

second is by recording the audio by connecting the mic into the audio interface and connect the audio interface to the computer via USB cable, into the DAW.
and while I do that I record the video with the camera and put the video and the audio together in vegas pro or windows movie editor.

are there any quality differences between the two?

The first method sounds like a whole heap of trouble, for all the reasons that Dave mentioned, despite its apparent simplicity.

The second method is what I would use, and in fact what I do use. I record audio via interface into Reaper, then load video and its audio into Vegas, import the recorded audio, line them up, and ditch the camera's audio.
 
Camera audio is in general, very average. Some have manual level controls, perhaps a limiter, while others are auto only. Every time it gets quiet, the preamps in the camera increase the gain (and they are never very quiet), and on the loud bits they suddenly turn the level down. Often, you can spend ages putting the dynamic range back, but if you have a decent mic, a decent interface and the possibility of going into your computer digitally, then using a random analogue stage is a bad move. Ok for emergencies, but is there any reason to NOT record digitally given the option?
 
As everyone said, even high-end cameras have mediocre audio.

Why do you think that high-end movie companies always record their audio >separately< and there are lines of very high-end stand-alone audio recorders for film companies?
 
I've done this a couple of times - I will simply say this.
On-board camera mics are great for one thing - aligning the video with the audio you recorded separately.

Create some sync-points. That means a clapper-board (you can make one with two bits of shelf if you need to). All you need is a "bang" at fixed points start and end. It's then a simple matter of slicing up your audio and video, lining up the "bangs" (time stretch if needed - though I've never had to so far, with both camera and sound card at 48kHz). Always "bang" before you pause either camera or audio recorder, and "bang" when restarted, to give yourself new sync points.

You can even bring in multiple cameras that way - I did - 3 of them - without sync points it would have been a nightmare lining it all up.
 
Actually, truly high end cameras have pretty good audio, though (even then) for convenience it's normal to use a portable external mixer like an SQN or Audio Developments so the sound recordist can ride levels without touching the camera and just feed the audio in (at line level) via an umbilical cable or even an RF link. Obviously, this is only for a couple of tracks--anything more complex like a drama or music recording tends to be the specialist portable recorder as discussed above. Note that when I say "high end" I'm talking truly professional gear, not the sort of thing being discussed here.

In this case, you can add me to the list of people suggesting recording on your computer and, with the aid of a clapper board or even just an on-camera clap of the hands, syncing the sound during the editing process. With a bit of practice this is easier than it sounds and has been used as a professional technique since the invention of talkie movies.

I'd be very leery of anything with a 3.5mm input--I've yet to see one used in any quality situation.
 
Even with good mics on a high end camera, I personally find the way the sound mix shifts around with camera movements to be annoying on music productions.
 
Er, I wasn't referring to mics ON a camera. Those are about as useful as tits on a bull except maybe for shooting general cutaways of traffic or something (and, even then, a good sound recordist with a shotgun does a better job).
 
Back
Top