In article PBOXa.71129$o%2.34512@sccrnsc02,
Steve King wrote:
Three very tight spotmikes are your best choice from an
intelligibility and clear solid voice standpoint, but they might not
look right on-camera.

Absolutely. But if looks are more important than sound in a meeting
room, someone has their priorities wrong.

This statement is a little too general to be useful. As a
producer/director I can think of many reasons that I might make
picture/sound compromises. I think that Scott got it right.

Well, I'd have thought at a *meeting* the words were all important. The
pictures of talking heads merely wallpaper. YMMV, though.

And the usual reasons for picture/sound 'compromises' are purely to save
money.

If you don't want to see any mics, the contributors can be rigged with
radio mics - this will also allow them free movement if this is needed.
But it will cost. More than a crappy PZM.

--
*If all is not lost, where the hell is it?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn