plugging directly into camera

[aracu]

Any suggestions for the ultimate easy quick connection of one 1/8 inch (headphones) plus two XLR (mics) directly into video camera, in such a way as plug them all in with one cable simultaneously, such as one with
a lemo connector, without stressing the connectors built into the camera?

[jahtao]

The XLRs are alright, the leads will break before the connectors. Perhaps try gaffer-taping some slack. Yes the mini-jack is a worry, a right-angled one is better. Maybe the only solution is be aware and take care, but suppose if my life depended on it I'd come up with something, like a half a tennis ball taped over it as a protective dome (tm by me... draw a smiley face on it and I'll let you use it)

Or maybe there's a pro solution??

Matt

[Matti]

Along these lines
Trew Audio - Cables, Connectors & Adapters - BETACAM Break-away Cables - Remote Audio ENG Break-Away Cable for Shure FP33/32A, Sound Devices MixPre, 302 and Wendt X2
many models to choose
Or
betabox

Matti

[aracu]

I've heard there's a way of plugging in with just one cable attached to a lemo connector, which then has short extensions connected to headphone and both XLR inputs, to avoid ever disconnecting directly to a camera built in input. For working quickly with frequent moving of the camera.

[Matti]

Check the links

Matti

[aracu]

Matti, those look interesting but I get the impression that they would not be light enough to stay plugged into the camera as it is being moved around a lot on
location. Looking for a solution which is extremely light with short cables, which stays plugged into the camera, connecting to one master cable which is plugged in and out each time the camera moves. It has to be something so light as to not damage the camera while it is being moved, drag on the ground, get tangled,
upset the PA etc.

[aracu]

Matti, yes you're right some of those links solve it, thanks!

[tsvisser]

BETACAM breakaways are THE defacto standard (for high end professional) applications. You can't go wrong with that route.

The quality of wireless equipment is damn good now too, but not cheap. You got the budget? Might be interesting to look at the digital offerings from the likes of Zaxcom, Lectrosonics, and even Sony with the DWR/DWT line.

[jahtao]

Oh.

Slightly misunderstood you at the start. Yeah Lemo etc is totally the way forward but it still doesn't stop someone snapping your mini-jack off in the headphones output, which had happened to the last camera I plugged into, ouch!

[aracu]

Thanks tsviser. I'm starting a new thread to investigate wireless.

[jacobfarron]

I do breakaways usually, and only wireless when it's unavoidable... just know the camera op will have to monitor audio if you go wireless and you have to trust him to recognize RF hits and the like.

[aracu]

Hi jacobfarron, I've never been in a situation where wireless was necessary, although other crew members liked the idea of it. What in your opinion would be an example? Thanks, aracu

[tsvisser]

Originally Posted by jacobfarron

I do breakaways usually, and only wireless when it's unavoidable... just know the camera op will have to monitor audio if you go wireless and you have to trust him to recognize RF hits and the like.

If you were to use the Zaxcom TX990, for example, you can get an option where it may record onto FLASH memory cards too... so if there is a dropout to the receiver, you have a local backup as safety. Wireless adds a level of convenience in that you can make / break shots quicker, or a lot of people like to do super fast hand held shots and having wireless will enable the camera operator a level of freedom they wouldn't normally have. Of course have a snake with you as a backup. Rightfully so, you simply cannot depend on wireless to be there 100% of the time for you with respect to reliability. ...but it is silly expensive - but then again, having multiple lengths snakes and end adapters, replacements, repairs, that adds up too, and time is money, so if it saves time on the shoot, there is a value there to be had. Could you charge more for your services if you give them an untethered setup?

[jacobfarron]

For example - on Survivor. It's all wireless to camera, and all the contestants are on boom. So, if the DP wants a long lens shot, climb up a tree, get in the water, etc - we (audio) have to stay within the boom's reach. Also, if theres going to be a lot of movement... ie: shows like Cops, it's easier to be wireless to camera. Or if you're in a huge crowd of people, like concerts. Ever try to backpedal through a drunk mob of thousands with a wire between you and camera? Nightmare. Wireless all the way.

That being said, I still avoid it when I can.

[aracu]

Yes, in the context of recording straight into the camera I can see your point with those examples.

However if you were synched to the camera in free run, wearing a small digital recorder, you could achieve those shots pretty easily with a shotgun mic/
telescoping boom pole connected to the recorder with a short cable, as I'm sure you are aware of.

The need to use wireless is perhaps related to the tendancy for filmakers to want to record directly into the camera.

[jacobfarron]

The need to use wireless is perhaps related to the tendancy for filmakers to want to record directly into the camera.

Exactly. The higher up's decide the workflow on those larger budget shows. For smaller shoots, adding a few more steps with separate audio wouldn't be an issue. For the big ones I can see why they might want to keep it as simple as possible.