Mic for on-location video shoot?

Greetings to all. I have an opportunity to run sound for an on-location
shoot in the next couple of weeks. I've dabbled in audio production for years (as a hobby, but a serious hobby), and this is my very first video project. I know very little about the project so far, only that it'll be one or two people shot at close proximity (I doubt there will be any wide shots), most likely indoors. I'll be holding the mic boom, and will ultimately be responsible for all of the audio quality so my friend can concentrate on direction and the overall quality of the shoot.

I've been tasked to find a good shotgun mic that's very directional. The mic my friend has used in the past is a Sennheiser MKH816T, but he reports to me that this mic is not directional enough. Projects he's worked on in the past with this mic have entirely too much ambient noise creeping in from all over, and he really needs to limit this as much as possible. As I mentioned before, I know very little (at this time) about the environment in which we'll be shooting, but based on what I've offered thus far, can anyone recommend a good professional shotgun mic with a nice, tight axis?

I'm pretty excited about possibly getting into video here, so any advice would be most appreciated. Thanks!

An 816 is about as directional as you can go. Most professionals use the shorter 416. As with all super directional mics these have side lobes which can pick up extra sounds you don't want, particularly indoors where reflections from walls and ceilings direct unwanted sounds into these lobes. So, in fact, sometimes a less directional mic, like a standard cardioid, can sound better on an indoor location.

The other technique for better wanted to unwanted sound is too get the mic in as close as possible to the source you want to hear. It's no good waving even a directional mic several feet away from the source. Liaise with the cameraman to get the mic as close as possible without getting it in shot. An experienced boom operator can predict quite accurately what shot the camera is seeing. Also, remember you can mic from below your actors faces if it is a mid shot rather than from above.

An alternative approach is to use clip on radio mics if you only have a couple of actors. Although positioning these is an art in itself. The results  can sound a bit bland if there is not much acoustic picked up on them. A mixer of the two methods probably gives the nicest results.

As ryclark says, the 816 is probably the most directional mic out there.  The only way I know of to get a tighter angle is using a parabolic reflector like:  http://www.parabs.com/ .  However, although things like this have their uses, they're more for "eavesdropping" than for quality sound.

Beyond that, ryclark gives good advice.  Mic placement is probably more effective than trying to get something super-directional, and if ambient noise is too high, then radio mics are the most common alternative to use.

Just to throw in a bit of a joker, I don't know what the shoot is for, but that vast majority of my field recording for film and video over the past few years has demanded MS stereo, not just a single mic.

Bob

Ok gents, I appreciate that feedback. Perhaps my friend's poor
experiences with the 816 were primarily due to improper placement,
poor boom operator, etc. I'll share this with him and see how it
goes. Indeed, a parabolic would not be appropriate for this shoot,
but I see where you're heading with that.

Another alternative is hiding mics in the scenery or props as long as the sound path isn't obscured. eg. tie clip mic stuck on the back of a salt pot on the table in a scene at a table in a cafe.

Of course, the other option for a cheap, but good shotgun mic designed to do this sort of job is the Rode NTG-2 (or the NTG-1 if you absolutely know that you'll always have phantom power available). Initial tests showed that it is a pretty good mic for the price, but I haven't yet got back the field report I am expecting, or heard any audio shot in anger with it - although if there were going to be any real problems with it, I daresay that I would have heard.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned, but is key to getting good boompole sound, is that the boom operator should have a decent pair of sealed headphones connected directly to the mic preamp output to monitor on. There's absolutely nothing like getting the best direct feedback you can if you want to ensure that the sound you pick up really is good...

Another vote for the Rode NTG1/2 mics that SteveG mentioned.  I have an NTG1 in my kit as a backup but it compares very favourably indeed to the far more expensive Sennheiser416.

However, therein lies the caveat.  Your original post asked for something much more directional than a 416.  As has been explained before, I doubt this is actually the way to go, with recording technique being much more important than a super-directional mic...but for the avoidance of doubt, the Rode mics recommended are similar pattern to a 416, not a "super shotgun" link an 816.

Bob

Firstly, my apologies/gratitude for my tardy response/your excellent feedback. Turns out, the mic used on the shoot was the 416 after all, and now that I've officially been deflowered in the world of on-location audio, I can now say with experience that the 416 is a very directional mic. The quality was terrific, PROVIDED my subject didn't turn his/her head too much to the side. Wow, the drop off from being even the slightest bit off-axis is very noticeable, so much so that I asked for another take from time to time when my subjects were head-movers. I used a Shure FP32A field mixer with a pair of Sony MDR-7506 phones (my favorite, and a world standard).

Looking back on it now, if I had it to do over again there are some things I would've done differently. Don't get me wrong, I suppose for my first shoot I'm sorta pleased with how I did, but in retrospect I wish I'd asked to have that Coke vending machine unplugged for a few minutes, and perhaps the air conditioner turned off as well. Oh, well. I'll just carry this knowledge with me to my (hopefully) next shoot, and apply then what I know now. This makes for a nice segue...

I see from your replies that you like the Rode NTG-1/2 for a field mic. Are there any others out there that aren't quite so directional that you like? (I can't believe I'm asking this now, after my first post!) I suppose I could keep the 416 in the arsenal for an outside shot, but now I need to focus on smaller rooms with multiple people, and I need a good quality mic with a fatter lobe. As always, I anxiously await your advice. Cheers,

Well, the 416 is an interference tube mic with a "super cardioid/lobar" pattern.  The next step down in directivity would be an ordinary cardioid...of which there are quite a few to choose from.

If you want an inexpensive way to try out a mic or three, I've recently been having a good time trying out a couple of mics from SE electronics.  The SE1A is a small diaphram condensor cardioid that's inexpensive but seems to perform very well.  It's also available as part of a matched stereo pair.

However, very interesting is the SE2A which is effectively the same mic but with interchangeable capsules, available with omni, cardioid and hypercardioid patterns.  As I say, I've been using one of these lately and have been very impressed...as a mic it "punches above it's weight".  Caveat here...that's my impression of the unit I've got...the problem with inexpensive mics can be the consistancy.  That said, I've recommended them a few times now and so far everyone has been happy.

Bob

A lot of the professional location recordists use Sennheiser MKH40 or similar from the Schoeps CCM range, if you have the budget.

Otherwise, as Bobbsy says, many of the fairly low cost cardioids available to the music industry will do but you may need specialist antivibration boom mounts and windshielding kits for location use.

You could have a look at the Rode NT5 as Rode has been mentioned here before.

Well, now that we've covered mics (at least somewhat), I'd like to ask about field mixers and possibly even field mic processors, if they exist. As I mentioned, I used a Shure FP32A on this job. I really liked it, once I opened it up and set those dip switches to the right positions. I also just found out that it costs $1100. I certainly don't want to skimp here, but ouch. Are there other more cost-effective solutions out there? (And by that I mean cheaper)

Is it unusual to have some small amount of mic-processing out in the field? All I'm looking for here is some gentle leveling, perhaps some compression in the neighborhood of 3:1 or so. I'm not expecting (nor would I want) to have this take the place of post, but I did have one shot with 6 people, and the difference in how they spoke was fairly dramatic. I didn't want to rely on the Shure's limiter, and thought that maybe a good battery powered compressor might do the trick.

"Proper" location sound mixers cost 3 or 4 times the price of the Shure mixer.

Location sound should be recorded with absolutely no pre-processing, except for perhaps a limiter as a safety measure in case things get out of hand. It's all done at the dub. So just set your levels to cater for the loudest and let it record. 24 bits will give you more headroom.

These days a multi track would be used, one track per person. Otherwise you need a mixer with a limiter per channel.

This is a commonly used mixer.

http://www.audio.co.uk/AD149/149page.htm

So are larger productions just done w/ multiple boom operators and a dedicated guy for mixing, or perhaps one boom operator and everyone gets connected via wireless to this mixer? I guess it just depends on the budget...

Yes, one mixer, one or two boom operators and radio mics to taste. Maybe be some hidden fixed mics as well. All depends, as you say, on type of production and budget. Hollywood blockbuster will have an infinite budget compared to local TV doco shoot.

Location mixers, at least if you stick to the good names, are one area where it might be acceptable to consider used gear on ebay.  Names to watch for are SQN or Audio Developments, both of which have units that cost several times the Shure you liked...but which are built like a Sherman tank.

I recently sold my 10 year old Audio Developments (I think I made a mistake there too...) for a fraction what I paid originally...and it was still going strong and meeting original spec when measured on my Lindos analyser.

Bob