I'm curious about the constraints - and how much processing you'd need to have 2 or more cameras. Given that we can now record many retina screens... I'd guess that it's well within the realm of possibility to record 2+ Logitec type cameras - if not many more.
I've been wanting to do something like this:
Derek Wood said:
I'd guess that it's well within the realm of possibility to record 2+ Logitec type cameras
Keep in mind there are potential USB bus bandwidth issues so that's part of the challenge. With Thunderbolt there's driver to contend with. Our Wirecast program can capture multiple cameras though.
CraigS Not if I've recorded two video feeds and a separate audio track. Premiere allows you to do multicam sync it takes a pro audio track and syncs it with the poorer quality audio on the cameras and aligns everything up. It also show both camera feeds and allows you to switch shots as you playback the footage in the edit. The software then saves the edits on the fly. It's a game changer for anyone using a multicam shoot for video webinars etc etc.
Paul Allen said:
Not if I've recorded two video feeds and a separate audio track.
If ScreenFlow could capture multiple video and audio feeds at the same time they'd remain in sync. Keep in mind this feature request thread is about simultaneous capture.
Paul Allen said:
Premiere allows you to do multicam sync
As do many NLEs. Those are separately imported files that must be synced in post. That's a different workflow than simultaneous capture.
Yes Derek Wood I think I've confused the issue apologies! I don't need to record two different sources at the same time. I would like the ability to add two videos sources with audio to the timeline and then have the ability to sync them all up based on the audio and then make the camera switches on the fly similar to Final Cut and Premiere.
Paul Allen said:
I would like the ability to add two videos sources with audio to the timeline and then have the ability to sync them all up based on the audio and then make the camera switches on the fly similar to Final Cut and Premiere.
Please do start a post to make that a feature request to vote on or, if it already exists, add your support.
I understand completely the input bandwidth limitations in combining the outputs from plural cameras into one computer input; but I cannot see the need for 'live' combined input. What is wrong with prerecording with plural cameras, and later, using their outputs as separate sources, and eg a clapper-board sound spike sync method.
As an aside, I wonder if colour/temp matching of the various clips has received enough attention - but of course that is an entirely different subject for which I apologize.
"What is wrong with prerecording with plural cameras, and later, using their outputs as separate sources, and eg a clapper-board sound spike sync method."
We can already do that. In many cases, it's much more time-consuming. When I'm talking, and then I cut to myself typing - then it all goes straight into the program. It's a lot less work - and it's a lot more how a television studio works. If I want to record a 30-second clip - it could take 30 seconds... or 5 minutes or fiddling around with camera SD cards and matching things up and importing and organizing. Why don't we just have no video camera at all? Not even one? and then sync it up with claps?
This thread is for people who want this functionality. What purpose do you serve by asking "what's wrong with not doing this?"
Oh dear Derek, how rude, and if you must try to quote me, please get it correct: I would never use a double negative, so ungrammatical.
Having dumped the recent polemics I encountered here, into the nearest black hole, may I explain that I shoved my nose where obviously it wasn't wanted, from the position of a frequent user of Final Cut Pro, with its superb multi cam input sources capabilities.
Screenflow is by far the best application for producing real-time YouTube etc tutorials and it is a huge tribute to its programmers that it can double up as a post production non-linear editor. As I said before I can understand the bandwidth limitation of realtime input of plural cameras; but there is another reason, I think, that Screenflow, (in fact any real time video producing App.) is unsuitable for real time multi cam use.
Imaging the production of a music video: a presenter is at his foreground desk, main camera; a multi player band behind him/her:
a. main camera on presenter - one
b. widescreen camera, the entire band - one
c. medium view cameras on each of the band players - say four
d. tight view cameras on the players hands, faces, feet - say ten
Thats sixteen outputs!!!
The presenter must have a copy of the score in front of him, preferable out of shot of the camera, PLUS, and this is where things get almost impossibly difficult; a real time switching/control desk operable, in real time, by the presenter, in sync. with the score:
a. switch to medium camera shot of guitarist
b. switch to tight shot of hands of guitarist
c. switch back to widescreen camera
etc etc etc.
Even taking out the on screen presenter, this makes the logistics of realtime multi cam use in Screenflow unrealistic.
In FCPX, with the luxury of post production editing and the multi cam inputs as switchable B-Tracks, the cameras' outputs are usually assigned to respective numbers on the number pad, for instant switching, AND, being non-realtime, the switching is non-destructive. The poor presenter in the above Screenflow scenario, must get it right first time!!!!
Splitting up the screen into say 16 different areas, each assigned to a different camera, is of course a solution, but this makes for a very busy presentation with long intervals of say the pianist being seen doing absolutely nothing.
Its really Horses for Courses
robert king If multicamera input is critical our Telestream Wirecast supports that with simultaneous switched and ISO recording in the Pro version. Wirecast doesn't have any editing functions though.
Certainly, I see the value in having multiple video and audio sources in ScreenFlow though.
robert king I'm not sure what your most recent point is, but - if it is that ScreenFlow is an application for recording screens and 1 camera (maybe a few) - and not an enterprise-level big-band 16+ simultaneous real-time camera input machine --- then you are certainly correct. That's a fact. I'm not sure how an application of this price range could be expected to fill in for a 500k+ soundstage/video system. What are your goals while participating in this thread? I can see that you are a great writer. Maybe you would prefer a course like this: https://thecreativesworkshop.com
Dear Derek, Whilst I am disappointed that you seem to be unclear as to what is my 'most recent point', and do I discern an attempt at sarcasm, I am flattered by your compliment.
I am not 'a great writer'.
I ran the scientific section, of the largest alternative health forum on the Internet for many years, so when I see a forum that I respect, I take the trouble to only post after redrafting my offering as many times as is needed to convey my opinion or information clearly and unambiguously, not only in content but also in format.
Just throwing in my upvote for this and explaining the need:
I am a teacher of graphic design, music production and computer science. I am about to have a *very* heavy need to create tutorial videos during which I need to be able to capture a talking head for engagement, the computer screen(s) for several open apps *and* an overhead shot of either a table of midi devices and synths (for music) or a graphics tablet, ShuttlePro and 3dConnexion mouse (for graphics and animation).
Both of the workflows I am teaching involve on screen actions and physical interaction with an assortment of hardware.
Sequential recording is simply not an option.
I have already used Wirecast and the Virtual Camera but having two live camera inputs would allow me to seamlessly capture that actual production flows I am attempting to teach.
I understand there are potential processing power issues here but I am pretty sure, based on my current workflow with Wirecast, that this is well within the realm of a decently fast system.
For what it's worth I am currently working with a max'd out Mac Mini, 3 2K monitors, a Logitech C920 and a Logitech Brio 4K.
I am able to do live switching in Wirecast of all three monitors and both cameras via virtual camera to Zoom (or Screenflow) in real time. It is just a cumbersome and inflexible way to get the content into Screenflow.
I think this is doable from a processing point of view.
The multi-screen record is a brilliant addition. Multi-camera would put Screenflow into a different realm for my uses.
Derek Wood The setup in this diagram is exactly what I'm after too. I would love to be able to record multiple webcam streams concurrently and then decide which angle to use during editing.
My use case looks much the same as yours:
- Once front camera for when I'm demoing something in the screen.
- One side camera for when I'm just talking to the camera.
- One down-facing camera for filming my hands drawing on a pad.
Can I +1 this feature request anywhere?
Danny Smith There's a vote button at the top left. The UI is just a little confusing. Besides that, they just say to fill out the Feature Request Form
Pass this on to any other users. They'll probably need a lot more than 5 of us asking for this. Especially when some people in this thread aren't helping by acting like this isn't a smart feature.