People say nice things about the Sanken CS1. But the shock mount is not usually part of the microphone, so you should be able to replace your mount without buying a new mic. Without actually knowing which mic you have it's a little difficult to tell. What kind of camera are you using? What's your price range? What is a "Rode Video Mic" exactly? Link?
Here's the one I'm talking about: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/363083-REG/Rode_VIDEOMIC_VideoMic_Camera_Mounted.html
A good picture of the shock mount using rubber bands:
I am using a Panasonic HDC-HS700 – http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/674251-REG/Panasonic_HDC_HS700K_HDC_HS700K_High_Definition_Camcorder.html
The link is for a more recent model (700K).
I hope to pay no more than 400 for a new mic.
Okay – for that size camera I honestly don't know what mic to suggest. But it sounds like your real trouble is the shock mount, so you might just experiment with different rubber bands or doubling up bands to see if you can get something that doesn't make noise when you move it. With audio gear, you generally get what you pay for, and most mics that are considered professional start around twice the price you are looking for. Remember, though, that a great microphone can last for decades if you take care of it, unlike digital cameras these days, which usually have to be upgraded every couple years. So investing in good sound gear makes some sense if you plan on making films for a while. Also, really good microphones tend to retain their resale value. But for now, focus on trying different rubber band configurations.
Alright, you make a good argument for investing in a quality mic. Will try messing with the rubber bands just in case I can hack something together. If I start spending too much time on it, I'll just buy a higher quality mic.
My documentary is health related and I'm having trouble finding a gastroenterologist who will agree to see me for a general consultation check up and be filmed while that is happening. I've talked to 2 offices and all 12 GIs have declined to go on camera during my appointment.
Having them on camera I think is really important for people at home to see what happens during these appointments. If you have ever seen the documentary, Super Size Me where Morgan Spurlock visits doctors in the beginning, you'll understand what I'm talking about.
I will keep searching, but I'm thinking of a backup plan and want your feedback. That plan is to get a small pen camera or easily concealed audio recording device and getting it on record that way, regardless of permission. Then in the editing process I will of course make sure there aren't any identifiable elements on visual and audio.
If I do this, I think it can add some needed tension to the film anyway. "What are they hiding? What don't they want you to know about?"
I'm hoping that as long as there isn't any way to identify the doctor I see, there shouldn't be any legal issues. Thoughts?
If you think the backup plan can work, have any suggestions for "spy" cameras or audio?
In reply to Reid B. Kimball's post on Tue 7 Jun 2011 :
well Reid, for one thing, they are afraid of malpractice suits, as they very well should be. drs have more to answer to than just their patients, believe it or not.
one of the drs in SSM was Dr. Isaacs, who was actually my internist for a while back when I lived in nyc. He's originally from S. Africa so I'm thinking maybe he doesn't scare easily – he certainly impressed me in many ways when I knew him – and it was a real hoot seeing him in the film.
not sure why you feel "the people at home" need to see you with your dr. most everyone over the age of 18 (and many under) have been to a gastro specialist so why is this so special?
at any rate, you might want to try medical schools. do you have a legal release ready in a pdf or fax format that you can provide immediately? and have you stated as such? that should be your top priority.
you might also call your local med asso and ask them for names of drs who do any kind of educational programming or promotional work – that might at least give you some contacts but you'll still need a hefty release.
btw, the release probably should be prepared by a product liability defense attorney since that's who would be defending a dr in a lawsuit...
In reply to Linda Wasson's post on Tue 7 Jun 2011 :
I feel it's important to get this on camera because it's part of my story of dealing with Crohn's disease and how I answer the questions they ask and how they respond in turn when they learn I'm not using conventional treatments.
I do have a release form that I call a "model release" and it's worked fine so far. Here's the link in case you want to see it: http://crohnsend.com/documents/model_release_template.pdf
Interesting idea having someone write the model release to protect the doctors and not me... if I understand that right.
Also, I don't understand why a doctor would be concerned about malpractice suits suddenly if there's a camera in the room. What's that got to do with how they practice medicine? I know, I should be asking them that question.
In reply to Jake Salyer's post in Introduce Yourself
I really liked your images. I wasn't expecting to see the whole film; I was expecting some clips or a trailer.
You might want to consider making a very short version, if you haven't already, to give people a taste of what you have done and draw them in to want to see more.
I would seriously think about redoing the narration before submitting to festivals. Not only is it technically thin, but (even though it is probably your voice) it sounds like it is being read, rather than told with enthusiasm/interest. Also, the film could use some pretty serious work on the overall sound mix.
It is a very interesting story of which I had no previous knowledge.
Others here may have better insight into how the story and editing are working. I just wanted to bring up my thoughts on the narration.
In reply to Reid B. Kimball's post on Wed 8 Jun 2011 :
the release is to protect you – by having one drawn up by a lawyer that deals w/product liability (which includes med mal) you are assuring all parties involved that you are sincerely making an effort to keep everything correct and are not trying to set someone up. I know if I was a producer on such a doc, it would be the very first thing I would put on the list of priorities with regards to interviews. a model release in this situation simply isn't adequate.
additionally, if you don't have an established track as a filmmaker, what's to prove this film will actually be finished, released and worthy of having this particular dr (whoever it is) in it? that is, you could have some alterior motive unknown to the dr.
just look at Breitbart who set up the Acorn sting as well as a couple others and then railroaded A. Weiner into a corner (ok, some say he did it to himself but personally, I could care less about this guy's sex life; he's damn good at progressive politics and that's more important to me)
Reid, one of the most important considerations to learn when making docs is whatever passion you have for the subject is of course, a good thing, but whenever people are involved, you are asking something of them. You are asking their time, input, energy, opinions, whatever and how you ask and what you ask for can have significant impact on your final production. It's critical to look at their side of it, and understand the fear, suspicion, worry, etc., that participants experience whether they are willing or unwilling.
We as filmmakers are only storytellers. without the generousity of those who share with us their true stories, well, I suppose we'd be making narrative films :)