# Live Projection in High School Concert?



## DarSax (Feb 22, 2007)

FYI, I'm putting this in this thread because I'm asking this primarily from a lighting design standpoint.
So as a couple of you may remember, our annual Talent Show is coming up this year. For those of you who don't know, it's more of a Talent Show/Rock Concert. We're renting ML's for the show (21 this year!), so it's a big production.
I'm always looking to up the bar though, and so this year, I was thinking of incorporating...live projection/recorded video. Rear projected onto the set, would probably end up being 5' x 8'. Set up 3-4 cameras, at least one stationary, the rest with ops doing fun stuff like zooming in and out on the talents, panning around, etc. in time with the music. Like the stuff they do at professional concerts.
That's the only thing though. Video at professional concerts is largely because people can't see the talent. We really don't have that problem--the video would just be there to be cool. 
Now that's where I need advice, though. I've only been to one concert with video (RHCP), but to me the video distracted me from the lights and the live talent. It's largely my decision about whether or not we incorporate video, and personally, I'd rather have it be more of a lights show than a video show. But at the same time, it might be cool.
---
So that's the question. Should I incorporate video? I'm worried that it will distract from the rest of the action (especially the lights) because people might be so naturally drawn to the motion and stuff. And it might be weird, because people really won't have the problem of seeing the talent.
Yes? No? Keep in mind--this would only be for the band acts, pretty much.


----------



## gafftaper (Feb 22, 2007)

I think my concern would be doing a good job so that it really does look cool and professional. It takes some work and talent to blend and mix those camera shots well. The pros spend a lot of time rehearsing to get the right shot. You on the other hand need a lot of time for just plain learning how to do it in the first place. But, it's a cool idea and a great opportunity to push yourself and learn something new. So I say go for it, but make sure you have lots of time for your video crew to learn the equipment and practice before the show. 

The other thing to remember is that although no one is sitting 1000 feet away straining to see the stage, the video projection still enhances their view. Don't sell that short, You are turning a normal human head into a 5 foot high head... That's changing the audience experience a lot. In order to not distract from your light show I would try to locate the projection screen off to the side of the stage out in front of the proscenium.


----------



## DarSax (Feb 22, 2007)

Wow, thanks for the feedback already.

As far as the projection screen--it kinda needs to be in the center, just because of the set design. I would think, though, that the closer the screen is to the lights, the more effective it all is because your eye doesn't have to "choose" what to look at? (I could be off on this one)

In reply to Tyler's post;
>We'll have a video switcher op, who will decide which cameras are displayed, etc. as well as any effects such a colorizing, negative, etc. etc. etc.
>Since the show is so episodic, rock bands to skits to dances, etc, I designed the screen so it can "disappear" into the set for certain acts like dance acts or skits, where the primary focus should really be on the talent, not on the vid. screen. (At least, I think. Dance acts traditionally have cool lighting, but I'd be afraid to distract from the overall experience of the dance?)

Thanks for the camera op tips though, I'm going to have to search for good people to run them.


----------



## SHARYNF (Feb 22, 2007)

Live projection can really enhance the performance.

Getting a screen that is behind the group to work well is difficult, usually for greatest brightness you need to use rear projection. This is why some of the designs recently used are using multiple LCD/Plasma displays hung in a row or in a stack over or to the side of the Band, If you ever get to look at Sound Stage on PBS they have moved to this system. Problem is it is expensive.

Projection usually works best to the side, over or alongside the speakers.

Some things to keep in mind, have the shots be mainly close ups, there is no sense in putting an image on the screen that is smaller than that image the audience will see of the performers on stage. Used this way it can get quite effective

You can also look at visualizer software and run it from pc with video out so that you in essence get a ML gobo type projection to fill inalso

A nice effect is to work up logo's for the bands acts and the event and work these into the designs. 
Keep your video lines to the projectors away from ac runs or else you will have hum bars in the video 

Sharyn


----------



## stantonsound (Feb 22, 2007)

I actually did live video for a corporate event that featured live music and it was a huge hit. The customer did not know that we were doing it, and I kept it that way because it was our first attempt at it so I didn't want to promise something that I couldn't provide.

I did notice that mos people, even those near the stage, were at least glancing at the screens. It really became part of the show, rather than just being something distracting. Let's face it, you could have 100 movers and most people just don't notice that kind of stuff. 

Now is a great time to pick up cameras. With television stations, etc... converting to digital and the like, the old shoulder style ones are selling for cheap. I picked up three Sony DXC-M3A's for less than $200 each. I got a cheap Korg video mixer and just ran a single line of RCA to each camera. (Yes, BNC is better, but I had LOTS on RCA laying around and just put on adapters to go to BCN) Other than a TV as a monitor at the switcher, that was about it. When we finished the event, I sold the cameras and actually made a little bit of money on each and bought some nicer cameras for the next show. If there are any public TV stations, or something of the like, you may be able to borrow them. I would have gladly let a school or the like borrow my old cameras. 

Advice that I can give....use a projector with a very high output. The concert lighting will wash out a dim projector. We used a 4000 lumen and it was fair to good. If you can use better, or double project from 2, then do so. And listen to SHARYNF, Rear projection is GREAT!

One idea that I have had is to get a pile of used TV's, like in the movie version of Rent (at the public performance), and patch them all into the video feed and make them part of the set. Get old console style TV's, black and whites....whatever you can find, and have them all how the signal. TV's scattered all around the stage, some high and some low, could be very cool.


----------



## Schniapereli (Feb 22, 2007)

I don't know what it looks like when you point a camera onto a live projection surface, but I know for TV's, it makes a giant white guzzhaw of light. With stantonsound's idea of placing ol tv's everywhere, that would we totally awesome, but very difficult to shoot around. As to rear projection, I don't know how it could be affected.
Maybe I was just dealing with a crappy camera, and TV when I was pointing the camera at the TV I was feeding the video to, but instead of just having the picture of a tv in a tv in a tv..., it was just a white blaze, and could be very distracting (like audio feedback, but for video).
I could be very wrong on this though. New equipment might deal with that better...?

I don't know how well it would work, or if maybe you could make some cool looks, but is it possible to use 2 projectors carefully focused on the same exact area in order to make it a lot brighter, and not get washed out with the stage lights? 

One cool thought. SharynF mentioned a while ago about taking old parts of moving cameras, and mounting lights on them to make moving lights. Just wondering if it would be possible to remove the light on an ML, and put a camera there. You could get some cool shots. Might be worth it. I know some moving light/projectors (DL2) have a camera in them. But, the owner or the ML's (who you are renting from) might not be very happy with that idea.

Yet another random idea... If some bands have good tempo, it might be interesting for them to film their own music video, and perform in front of it. (similar to the Gorillaz) This would require monitor tv's on stage...

I was just typing down the random thoughts as they came to my head. If they help inspire you or something, then that's great, but if you don't like them, then feel free to mock me and disregard my ideas.


----------



## DarSax (Feb 22, 2007)

First off, you guys are all awesome.
Second, we are in fact planning to use rear projection. I don't know about the lumen intensity of our projectors, but unfortunately we're kind of stuck with them irregardless; my budget for video is $0.00.

Third, because so far everything I've heard points to video off to the _side._ Attached are two crude pictures of the set/truss rig (I <3 MSPaint). The red area in the second is where I planned on rear projecting. Is this no good? *Will I get video feedback by placing it there?* Drum kit is pictured for comparison; the projection would be something like 8 or so feet off the ground (in other words, we'd be in danger of camera-ing the screen if we weren't really careful). 

Here, let me explain the screen, as it'd probably be helpful. The set is, as you might realize, the clock tower from back to the future. See the first picture? That brown box is a pair of functional double doors, and that pink is actual plywood walls. When the audience enters, it's a normal set.

Then, without warning, that entire pink area opens (like a larger set of double doors), and a projection screen drops down from above. Bam! Rear projection from nothing.

Which is why the center position would be the most favorable to me. I was considering putting two projectors on the sides (the parts with the windows), but my artistic director was having a fit about that (ruining the feel of the set) and wouldn't that be like, even worse as far as feedback goes? (Ugh, I never even thought of feedback).
Thoughts?


----------



## Radman (Feb 23, 2007)

You shouldn't have TOO big a problem with video feedback, you aren't going to be focusing the lenses of the cameras on the screen. And the brightness, well that's from pointing the camera at a light source... And anyways video feedback can be cool sometimes. I'd go for it, throw in some animations and stills, video clips, have fun with it. If you pay enough attention, you can really make the video part of the light show. For example, hue saturation in coordination with washes. I can't wait to see how this show turns out! Be sure to take lots of pictures [and video?] for us!


----------



## len (Feb 23, 2007)

If the show you're working on is using 21 movers, and it's more "Talent Show/Rock Concert" then video sounds appropriate. The only real issues I see are the lights shining on the screens, etc. The other thing (and this is just my opinion) is that sometimes video changes too fast, causing the audience to focus on it, and not the performers. For example, let's say there's a song playing, and there's a static camera shot of cars driving down the street. The image doesn't change for 1+ minutes, so you know the image but you focus on the performance. Now take the same song, and instead of cars driving down a street, you switch the image to a camera IN a car driving down the same street. The image changes, you want to know where the car is going and you watch that, not the performers. They become a soundtrack for the video.


----------



## Schniapereli (Feb 23, 2007)

The video feedback problem I was having had a bright light because the camera was old, and brightened the images a lot. As the video went through the loop, it got brighter, and brighter, etc.

That looks like a really awesome set. Our school never does that much work for a talent show. (We don't even rent moving lights for our biggest events.) I can see why you are so keen on the rear projection.

As I said before, I am not a video expert, and from what Radman said, it probably won't be a problem get the projection in the camera shots. It's always been something that I wanted to experiment with. If you already have some of the equipment, you could try a few shots out, and see if it is a problem. If it is, you can always shoot around it.

I second the request for pictures and/or video of the event. Looks groovy.


----------



## DarSax (Feb 23, 2007)

Heh, thanks for the compliments, I'm making sure to take unbelievable amount of pictures and video for this thing 

Since it's a related question, and everyone seems to be supportive of the idea. What's the best material to rear project on? Scrim? Tough spun? A bedsheet? (I'm looking low, low cost here, heh)


----------



## icewolf08 (Feb 23, 2007)

The best material to rear project onto is RP (rear projection) screen. This of course is not a very cheap solution. If you have a nice bright projector you can use stretched muslin as a projection surface. The last time I did that we were using 35mm slide projectors designed for theatre, so really bright. The other option is to get a bunch of materials and test them in your space, if you have time.

I can tell you one thing, you don't want to use scrim. First off, it isn't cheap, and second, it won't really transmit your image. Think... Scrims, when lit from behind are designed to appear mostly transparent to the audience.


----------



## DarSax (Feb 23, 2007)

True, that does make the most sense (ironically, we were planning on projecting on scrim for my last production. Wasn't my idea, but yea.). I should have time to test out whatever you guys suggest, and hopefully more.

By the way, it's 15 MLs, not 21. I think I'm just really tired this week.


----------



## u_dakka (Feb 24, 2007)

I'd second the earlier post about projection brightness, we're sufferring atm from our lights hitting the screen and the projected image goes from visible to not being there at all.
make sure that ur ML's arent going to hit the screen, as that definately is distracting.
gd luck
andy


----------



## DarSax (Feb 24, 2007)

Unfortunately, I really think we'll be stuck with what we have already. I actually don't know how powerful our projector is, it could be a big limitation. Any suggestions? I have a throw of about...10-12ft to work with.

As for the ML's, I'll make sure not to wash it out the best I can, though the drummer will be directly in front/below the screen (6 feet more towards the audience, however). I'm a little lucky in that the screen will be basically in a 6 foot deep "box", so hopefully that'll help with spill. (For those interested, I'm getting Mac 700 Profiles, Mac 700 Washes, and a couple Studio Colors)

*EDIT: I know I need to get the exact specs on the projectors before any of you can give me much advice, I know. But question. Rear projection is usually brighter than front, right? But, if I could hang it correctly/well, would it be better in this situation to front project?*


----------



## icewolf08 (Feb 24, 2007)

If you have only one projector, get it as close to the screen as possible such the the image covers as much area as you want. If you have more than one projector and a way of aligning them and splitting the video feed between them you can divide the image area up and get the projectors closer to the projection surface. The principle is the same as lighting, you get more light if it is closer, the inverse square law.


----------



## DarSax (Feb 24, 2007)

I might be able to get a second projector. If the image from one is too small, I might consider running them side-by-side (same image) to fill up more than one screen. Someone had suggested earlier to run them wiht the same image overlapping for more brightness, but that'd produce a weird image wouldn't? Double vision?

As far as splitting the video feed, would that be a. cheap and b. feasible? (Wouldn't the aspect ratio be shot to you-know-where?)


----------



## Foxinabox10 (Feb 24, 2007)

The best thing for brightness that I would suggest is make sure you have the correct material for rear projection. Nothing is going to dull the picture more than the wrong material.


----------



## Radman (Feb 24, 2007)

Find the money for an RP screen. Get donations from the bands, parents, local orgs, sell tshirts, something. Or ask to borrow one if you know anywhere that has one. I know our community theatre has one, I was gonna use it for one show I designed actually, but we couldn't find a projector. Rear projections is by far better than front.


----------



## DarSax (Feb 24, 2007)

Oh _lord,_ Radman, those things are expensive. There's raising money, but budget is hell for this show anyways.
I mean, I'll try (if it is such an amazingly better thing), but any suggestions for good rear projection materials at um, not $700 for 5' x 7.6'?
edit: It seems horribly cheap and gerry-rigged...but is wax paper the answer? (Or, persay, a roll of Tough Spun or Diffuse?)


----------



## Radman (Feb 24, 2007)

Is it really $700 to rent that?


----------



## DarSax (Feb 24, 2007)

$700 to buy, at least. 


I've found on rental place in the plausible area in the Lighting and Sound America Directory, that'll rent a whopping 20' x 20' screen for $300 a week. That's too much money, and too much screen D:.


----------



## TupeloTechie (Feb 24, 2007)

I've heard of people using tricot as a rear projection surface.


----------



## SHARYNF (Feb 25, 2007)

Go on ebay search for Fastfold and you will see many rear projection surfaces being sold and also full screen setups, and they are going pretty cheap.
A lot of the older square or basic rectangle sizes are being discarded by the rental houses, yet they can work very well

Sharyn


----------



## DarSax (Feb 25, 2007)

Sharyn, there is no such function on these boards that could fully comprehend the "THANK YOU"-ness I wish to bestow upon you.

"Rear mat" means "rear projection," correct?


----------



## Radman (Feb 25, 2007)

TupeloTechieKid said:


> I've heard of people using tricot as a rear projection surface.


I've heard tricot is good too.


----------



## Schniapereli (Feb 25, 2007)

DarSax said:


> Someone had suggested earlier to run them wiht the same image overlapping for more brightness, but that'd produce a weird image wouldn't? Double vision?QUOTE]
> 
> What I meant was if you can get them to be perfectly syncrohnized with eachother. Have the 2 projectors (1 just a little above the other, but with enough room for ventilation, and to work the buttons) and get them to be exactly the same. Keystone them both to be exactly square. It's like the 3D movies in a sense that they are 2 images from different projectors focused on the same screen.
> 
> Either that or icewolf's idea of splitting the image (different halves of the image) with a projector for each half.


----------



## SHARYNF (Feb 25, 2007)

DarSax said:


> Sharyn, there is no such function on these boards that could fully comprehend the "THANK YOU"-ness I wish to bestow upon you.
> "Rear mat" means "rear projection," correct?


My pleasure, yes rear mat is rear surface.
If they are dirty then can be cleaned with IsoP Alcohol. I use a number of them all the way from 4x6 up to 12x12. I use the 4x6 for band logo etc, Remeber that projection brightness is the output divided over the size of the area. so if you need high level of brightness, use a smaller size 8x8 10x10 and the non square sizes show up all the time. AV guys from Atlanta sell tons of them ;-)) 
Sharyn


----------



## SHARYNF (Feb 25, 2007)

getting two images to perfectly overlap is not simple, I would not recommend it, Sony used to do this for early HD projection at trade shows with their crt units, it took HOURS to get it set up.

Splitting the size of your image in half, using a design that has a clean break point can work.

Sharyn


----------



## DarSax (Feb 25, 2007)

First, thanks for the heads up on the rear mat 

Second, Unless the angle is terrible, I'm just going to go with the one projector, and hope for the best D:


----------



## Jezza (Feb 26, 2007)

As for your MLs, I'm not sure if you've worked with the Mac700s before but the profile is an incredible little instrument. Do yourself a favor though, if your rental house has an additional stock of MAC gobos, ask them to put in some more interesting ones than the stock 700 gobos. Don't get me wrong, their nice, but there are definately more interesting ones availible. If your spending that much on a rental, you might as well get what you really want. 

PS, not sure how high your grid is/where your movers are going to be but the 700 Profiles have quite a wide zoom when out at full w/ diffusion. You might want to think about changing the wash units over to profiles and gainging alot more versitility. Just a thought. What kind of console are you planning to use?


----------



## DarSax (Feb 26, 2007)

I've worked with the Profiles last year. Hadn't thought about the gobos, something worth looking into.

As for the washes, I'm getting a mix of M700 Profiles and Washes, and a couple Studio Colors because I needed two more wash lights for cheaper $$. I need the washes because my throw distances are pretty short and I need to use them for skits, bands, talents, dances, etc. etc. etc. (I don't understand how changing washes to profiles would _add_ versatility, heh). I'm renting a Hog2 to run everything.

Though, if we could, keep this thread to video related topics. I can post the whole rig setup in like, the pictures of your shows thread if people want though.


----------



## Jezza (Feb 26, 2007)

Sorry, I just saw Mac700 and that popped into my head. By changing the wash fixtures to profiles you get ton's more options in terms of projection, color, effects, etc. However, I understand your grid heigh concerns.

I attempted projection at myHS last year. Rear projection wasn't an option so I went with two 8'x8' screens out in the house. It was all pre-recorded media, so I was able to sync it up real nice with the lighting. Worked great. I've never done live video mixed with alternative media but I'm sure you'll figure it out. 

For our musical this year, Les Mis, we will be renting a number of DL1s and DL2s for various types of projection/live video. I'll let you know how that turns out, they seem like a stellar instrument.


----------



## DarSax (Feb 28, 2007)

Update on the projector.

Panasonic PT-LB50SU Projector
2000 Lumens, 400:1 Contrast

Looks like for the size I need, I need a throw of about 14 feet. Can anyone tell me about "gain?" It looks I'll need to darned near max it out to get any sort of brightness?

-----------------------
So, is this at all possible with this projector? At all?


----------



## soundlight (Feb 28, 2007)

From the looks of it, you might have too much ambient light to use that projector. But you might just have to try it out.


----------



## Foxinabox10 (Feb 28, 2007)

If you can curtain off the sides between the projector and the screen, it should help some. But yeah, you'll have to watch your brightness of lights when the video is crucial. Otherwise, it'll be a little faded...not necessarily a horrible thing.


----------



## DarSax (Feb 28, 2007)

"not necessarily a horrible thing" was kind of in my thoughts, heh. I know my Director's worried about the distraction factor aswell.


----------



## soundman1024 (Mar 1, 2007)

My thoughts are yes if:
You have content to put on the screen. Getting a projector is great..but make sure you have something to fill it with ahead of time. Having cameras is good, but make sure the projector won't dominate their shot often. Video feedback happens like sound feedback happens. Consider adding a computer with some content. If you don't own any you could consider using WinAMP AVS's or something similar.
The screen will not be in the performers eyes. I remember hearing of US Officials looking at the damage from 'Gadget' the first atomic bomb to explode. They were standing right where it exploded. Anyone today could tell you not to do that because of the radiation, but they didn't know it then. Perhaps in 20 years we'll look back and be like no, you don't hold a cell phone up to your head..the electromagnetic waves mess with your brain, or don't stand in front of the projector and look at it, it could mess your eyes up. I do know people who have had their vision messed up from this.
It is practical. Don't spend so much time getting a projection rig going you neglect the lighting. If time isn't of excess and you were pinched last year adding this and not adding time in the setup process may not be wise. Also make sure competent people are there to do the cameras and the switcher. If they are earthquaking with the camera it isn't a good idea.

Those are my thoughts.


----------



## SHARYNF (Mar 1, 2007)

If you can rent a video mixer, like a Panasonic MX50 or 30, then get a pc that has s video out, and you can use it for win amp type stuff or titles, etc, even power point type visual things. At the same time if you use a mixer with frame sync that allows you to glitch free mix like these panasonics do, then feedback is not an issue. in fact I have situations all the time when the projector screen will also show up in the video input, the video delay in the processing eliminated any feedback, just like a delay in the audio system will also eliminate feedback
lo

The other trick is to make sure that your lights dont shine on the rear surface, and having a drape that blocks off light from the stage on the side between projector and screen works . I use 1700 lumen notevision projectors all the time for this, if brightness is a factor, move the projector closer to the screen, remember it is light spread over area, so the smaller the image, the brighter it is
Sharyn


----------



## DarSax (Mar 1, 2007)

First, to soundman, I think you misunderstood, heh--I'm worried about the audience being distracted from the rest of the show and just focusing on the screen. That'd have to be some pretty bad band members, to get distracted by themselves...(I kid. That probably happens all the time.)

I'm looking into a video mixer, part of the good thing about being at a school is that we have one lying around (if I can get it working, I've used video switchers before but this one is confusing as hell, gotta find a manual). I'm also going to get a video card so I can output from a computer, as it'll make my life a lot easier.

With the lights hitting the pit, unfortunately I'll have to play that one by ear. I'm putting four intel washlights in the pit for front light (no good foh/front hanging positions!), which if positioned badly would mean instant and pretty bad direct spill onto the screen. Hopefully though, I'll be able to direct the beams so they cross the stage/get the talents, but don't wash out the screen. We'll see, unfortunately.


----------



## SHARYNF (Mar 1, 2007)

HI what video mixer does the school have?
Sharyn


----------



## DarSax (Mar 1, 2007)

The switcher I'm trying to get working is a Videonics MXPro DV. (manual)

If that doesn't work, I'm going to try and get an Panasonic MX-50, I know how to use it already (helps that its so exceedinly simple).


Edit: After going through the manual, seems like a fairly straightforward setup after all. I've heard rumors it might be broken irregardless, but in theory, the machine seems very simple.


----------



## soundlight (Mar 1, 2007)

Well, the MX-50 looks like a nice unit if the videonics is screwed.


----------



## SHARYNF (Mar 2, 2007)

the videonics has the usual sort of wierd preview of the inputs on one monitor, it will do the job, and if you want and have the cables you need you could run firewire from your cameras (there is a lot of long firewire cables on ebay these days at pretty low prices.

Personally I like the MX-50 I use a few of them with Bob Rall's mod and they work great. Need to remember that they don't have a traditional preview mode so you need to get tv's with loop thru so you can preview. I'v used some Panasonic 450 quad units for a small setup where you can get 4 inputs on one monitor but it is nicer with 4 full sized monitors on input, and one for output. Pretty much bullet proof.

Sharyn


----------



## DarSax (Mar 2, 2007)

I'm running coax from the cameras to the switcher (RCA on cameras -> Coax -> BNC into Monitors -> RCA into board. Sounds complicated, but I might be able to get all of my cabling needs for $0 just from the school.

I have a mini monitor setup so I can check the feeds of the cameras--I wouldn't depend on the Videonic's "preview" windows on their menu screen.

As for the MX-50, yea I know, I went to a media-heavy middle school so I used one pretty extensively, and the thing's a breeze. The only problem is actually being able to get one for the show, so I'll have to see how that all works out.

By the way, in response to an earlier part of your post I missed--what is "frame sync?" You mentioned that it eliminates video feedback?


----------



## SHARYNF (Mar 3, 2007)

the way these mixers work is that they have to syncronize the signals so that you can get a glitch free effect or switch. In a pro setup in a big tv studion what you do is all the cameras are genlocked to the same sync source, and then you actually tweak the timing so that the different cable lengths are all accounted for so that the switch and the camera inputs are all doing the scanning fully syncronized.

the way the panasonic and the videonics do this is they have a digital single frames store with one each for the two busses, so what happens is your input on the a bus and your selected input on the b buss are stored in this memory area, and the actual switch or effect is done via the buffer or frame sync. this is why for instance you introduce a frame delay when you go thru the switch. since this frame delay is 1/29.97 of a second or one frame, there really is no direct feedback from your camera to the projector etc, so you don't get the feed back problem you can of course get the infinite image situation where you see the image on the screen which then shows an image of the screen etc, but not the feed back problems

Also depending on the projector technology you are using DLP for instance also adds another single frame delay. This is why when you go thru the switcher/.mixer and then the projector you can if you look very carefully see the video lag the audio by typically two frames or approx 1/15 of a second.

If you can try to use good coax, keep the number of connections down.
For this sort of stuff we use the multiple cable output of the consumer camera which ends in a rca, then we use rg6 coax, with F connectors like the ones the cable companies use, and have screw in female rca to f connector adaptors, then on the rest of the system we use bnc.

An other alternative but sometimes it gets tricky since the cables are sticky is there is a simple adaptor that takes the s video and converts it to female rca and then you just need to use either an f connector to male rca or a bnc to male rca adaptor, I tend not to use this system since it hangs out of the camera too much, has too much weight, and so we use the typical multi av cable that comes with the camcorder.

Make sure you check the camcorders to make sure that they don't need the remote to turn off the display in the video feed, canon for instance is notorious for this problem, with people running around with remotes to get the display off.

Typically it seems to work best using auto focus, but have manual adjustment of the exposure. None of these mixers have tally systems so the person mixing needs to tell the people what camera they are GOING to, usually the people will know what camera you are on based on the screen, and you will probably be constantly looking at the preview to have them adjust the exposure. Coms to the cameras is important to make sure you get a good selection of shots, make sure that you tend have close ups. Also remember that most consumer camcorders do not have manual white balance, they do the white balance automatically on power up, so a good practice is to have the cameras focus on a white surface that you want to have look white. Otherwise with say bastard amber or other warming gels everything will look pretty red.

Don't put the screens too far to the side of the stage, you want to make sure that the audience can see the stage and the screen at the same time (unless of course they are in the mosh pit ;-))
In my experience it really enhances the experience, makes the production really look like a pro concert. In a project we did with Metallica and Godsmack we had two very different approaches to video

It was in the round, with four screens all up high over the stage, from the four sides. Godsmack used the screens for typical video close ups, etc. Metallica did a more security camera type deal. they had the quad and up displays on the screens, used a lot if simultaneous shots, and had small lipstick cameras on each mic stand.

Both offered interesting enhancements, Personally I think the Godsmack system was more watchable

Sharyn 

Sharyn


----------



## DarSax (Mar 3, 2007)

Not going to lie, I didn't completely understand all the tech. jargon in your post, but I think I got 99% of it. Thanks for the info! And for the cabling tips.

As for the placement of the screen, those were my thoughts _exactly_, heh. And glad to hear the video helped so much!

----
As for the cameras, I'm finding out right now which cameras I'm going to have to work with. Most likely, the clunky VHS tape (fun fact: I had to look up online what those tapes were called again) kind, where the entire tape is held in the camcorder and it's big and bulky and ugly. It will be...icky, but hopefully it'll work.


----------

